Roundup: Anti-Choicers: Forced Pregnancies For Child Rape Victims


Even amongst those who are ambivalent about abortion, the vast majority would support allowing a woman to have an abortion if she was raped. There is also greater support when pregnancy threatens the life of a pregnant woman. (Although a small percentage of survey respondents and website commentators always seem to be “okay” with forcing a pregnancy to continue that kills both the mother and child.) So what happens when there is a case that might make the anti-choice forces rethink their beliefs about forced pregnancy?

Such is the sad but very real case in Mexico of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and impregnated by her stepfather.

As CNN points out:

The Roman Catholic Church vocally opposes abortion in Mexico, and the topic has long been controversial there. The debate has been particularly heated since 2007, when the nation’s more liberal capital city approved a law legalizing abortion during the first three months of pregnancy with no restrictions. That decision was challenged and ultimately upheld by the country’s Supreme Court in 2008.

Since 2007, 17 states have passed laws “protecting life beginning at conception,” according to the Information Group on Reproductive Choice. Legislators in Quintana Roo, which is also is home to the popular resort city of Cancun, approved such changes to its constitution last year.

But even the conservative state of Quintana Roo allows abortions for reasons of rape, but only up until 90 days into a pregnancy. The girl is reportedly now at 17 and a half weeks which puts her beyond the legal limit even for an abortion in Mexico City.

Advocacy groups say the handling of the girl’s case by the authorities may have complicated her situation by not informing her of her rights.

“We don’t know what is happening, and the institution that is supposed to provide support and care for these minors hasn’t been transparent. We’re really asking for accountability,” said Maria Luisa Sanchez Fuentes, director of the Information Group on Reproductive Choice.

So why don’t we examine how some of the usual anti-choice media outlets are covering this story.

The Catholic News Agency calls her 11 years old (even though all other news reports refer to the girl as 10):

Various media outlets in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo reported this week that an 11-year-old who is almost 18 weeks pregnant is no longer in the hands of feminist groups who were pressuring her to undergo an abortion. The girl is now receiving proper medical care for herself and her baby.

The local press also noted that several private and state institutions have offered assistance to the girl and her mother, Zeyda Morales. However, feminist groups continue demanding she be granted the “right to abortion,” which they consider to be the only valid option.

The director of the Latin American office of the Population Research Institute (PRI), Carlos Polo, warned that “in these kinds of cases, pro-abortion organizations always use the same modus operandi (method of operating).”

“First they find a girl who has been raped and they keep her hidden and inaccessible to any kind of assistance. Second, they expose the case to the media without revealing any details of her clinical history.”

He continued: “Third, they center their media message on the idea that the legalization of so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’ is the solution for saving the lives of women. Fourth, they present themselves as the saviors of the life of the mother, and anyone who opposes their pro-abortion demands are quasi-criminals.”

Polo later explained that the PRI regularly researches these kinds of “fabricated cases.” He noted that “In New York, Monica Roca, Lilian Sepulveda and other representatives of the Center for Reproductive Rights have exposed their strategy of ‘developing reproductive rights in Latin America’.”

I’m not sure where the Catholic News Agency is getting its sources but in another story they report that the young girl (whom they say is 11) is refusing to have an abortion.

Despite protests and pressure from feminists and pro-abortion groups, an 11-year-old girl in the Mexican city of Chetumal has refused to undergo an abortion.  The young girl explained her decision saying that she understands, “a life is growing in her womb.”

The girl is receiving medical attention at a local clinic, where doctors say the results of psychological tests have been positive. The recent tests, said Lizbeth Gamboa Song, director of the National System for the Comprehensive Development of the Family, show the girl has a proper understanding of the new life within her and of what to expect during the pregnancy.

“She understands what happens before a pregnancy, she knows her womb will grow, she knows at some point her water will break, and she knows how the baby will be born,” Gamboa said.

Oddly I’ve found no other media outlet that confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story.

In Other News: Remember the Nashville school system that shut down a sex education class due to one parent’s complaint, who just happened to be an abstinence motivational speaker? The Tennessean reports that school officials are deciding today whether they can continue the class.

Today, school officials and representatives of Nashville CARES, the agency asked to provide the training, will meet to decide whether the training can restart within the boundaries of state law.

One Hillsboro leadership student said she and her classmates are stunned by the level of attention they’ve attracted.

“There was nothing, absolutely nothing that went on in the class that I was in that would have made me predict that all this might happen,” said Calli Pugh, a junior.

The girl’s mother also agreed.

Teri Pugh, Calli’s mother, said parents had to sign detailed permission slips for their children to participate in the peer education program. The class gave students the vocabulary to talk about their bodies in mature ways and speak frankly but accurately with one another about sex and its risks, she said.

“It’s a huge loss,” Pugh said.

April 21, 2010

Abortion Sparks Fly Around High-Court Vacancy Women’s eNews

First State Opts Out of Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill Obama Signed LifeNews.com

State may pay for some RU-486 use The Tennessean

Strategies to cut maternal mortality in India by 75pc Times of India

Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias Seattle Times

Gay, transgender rights an election-year wedge issue again The Patriot Ledger

China prepares to drop ban on HIV-positive tourists Telegraph.co.uk

Sex education program sparks outcry Toronto Sun

Texas appeals court to consider gay divorce case MiamiHerald.com 

In S. Mexico, Giving Birth Is Too Often Deadly AOL News

Mexico Rejects Church Criticism of Sex Education Terra.com

Nashville schools to decide fate of sex ed training The Tennessean

Ontario to introduce more explicit sex education in schools Globe and Mail

Researchers turn to social media to find volunteers for HIV study KOMO News

Birth Control Pills Bring Lawsuits Los Angeles Times

April 20, 2010

Oklahoma governor considers tough new abortion bills AFP

The Birth-Control Riddle Wall Street Journal

Waiting for gender pay equity? Only 47 more years to go Terre Haute Tribune Star

Remember Roe? Young Activists Say They’ve Never Forgotten. Newsweek (blog)

Gay rights arrests at White House msnbc.com

Shorter women have unhealthier kids in developing countries, study says Los Angeles Times (blog)

Anti-gay message to stay on fence UPI.com

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • bei1052

    It really should say “Anti-lifers: For abortions”

     

    An 11-year-old girl in Mexico allegedly raped by her stepfather and now more than four months pregnant says she wants to have his baby – despite pressure from women’s groups who want her to have an abortion, pro-life activists in the country say…

     

    …Last month, when the then-10-year-old girl’s mother told police that her daughter had been raped by the girl’s stepfather, she told authorities that she thought her daughter was 14 weeks pregnant, or 98 days, which was beyond the state’s 90-day limit. But women’s rights groups said that because it was unclear exactly how far along the girl was in her pregnancy, an argument could be made that she was still within the 90-day limit. 

     

    Conservative groups say that’s when abortion-rights activists latched onto the girl, who is now nearing her 19th week of pregnancy, and turned her into the face of their international campaign to legalize abortion.

     

    Women’s rights groups maintain that the girl is small even for an 11-year-old and that forcing her to give birth puts her life in danger. They say she is being pressured to have the child and was never informed of all her options.

     

    But others say that’s not true.

     

    Patricia Lopez Mancera, director of the conservative Center for Women’s Studies and Comprehensive Formation in Cancun, says she has been in constant communication with the girl’s mother and the child welfare services institution where the girl currently lives.

     

    Recounting the mother’s story of her daughter’s pregnancy and the girl’s decision to have the baby, she said, “Abortion was never an option. The girl and her mother never thought about it.”…

     

    …The girl has been temporarily placed in a child services housing facility where counselors met with the girl and her mother to discuss their options, Mancera said.

     

    She said they were asked of their plans and the girl immediately said, “We’re going to have a baby.”

     

    The mother said she was planning on registering the child as her own, then turned to the girl and said, “It’s going to be like a little brother.”

     

    The girl responded, “But it’s going to be my baby anyway.”

     

    Mancera said the director of the state facility told both mother and daughter that they had a list of 67 couples who wanted a child and that giving up the baby for adoption would be a wonderful thing to do.

     

    Again, the girl said, “No, no, no, we’re having it.”

     

    Mancera said abortion was never even considered, but they soon fell under the pressure of women’s rights groups that showed up at the girl’s home to talk to her mother about abortion. 


    But Maria Luisa Sanchez Fuentes, director of the Information Group on Reproductive Choice, says her organization and others just wanted to inform the girl and her mother of their choices, and that they would never want to force anyone to have an abortion against her will.

     

    She said the family was very poor, was being taken advantage of by the state government and was too scared to make a decision other than the one proposed by the government: to have the baby.

     

    But Mancera said the decision was made by the girl and her mother, not anyone else.

     

    “She is very much into motherhood,” Mancera said of the girl.

     

     

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/23/year-old-mexican-rape-victim-wants-baby/

  • wendy-banks

    Well, if it’s not another Faux Dittohead. Could you please get some news from a accurate source once and a while? How about Reuters, or AP Newswire–   Someplace that ISN’T a mouthpiece for the far-right? Fair and Balenced my ass.

    Ten-year-olds’ bodies are not mature enough to safely give birth (or gestate a pregnacy for that matter)– That is why it is termed A HIGH-RISK PREGNACY! As in a high-risk of the girl DYING IN LABOR! But then again, pro-lifers don’t care about that, do you? It’s god’s will and all that shit, right? Please come back after you’ve read up on high-risk pregnacies ‘kay?

  • wendy-banks

    Never mind, I looked it up for you Bei1052. Kind of me, eh?

    From Merk Manual

    Some risk factors are present before women become pregnant. These risk factors include certain physical and social characteristics of women, problems that have occurred in previous pregnancies, and certain disorders women already have.

    Physical Characteristics

    The following characteristics of women affect risk during pregnancy.

    Age: Girls aged 15 and younger are at increased risk of preeclampsia (a type of high blood pressure that develops during pregnancy). Young girls are also at increased risk of preterm labor and anemia. They are more likely to have babies who have anemia or who are underweight (small for gestational age).

    Women aged 35 and older are at increased risk of problems such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes (diabetes that develops during pregnancy), chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus, and stillbirth. Also, they are more likely to have complications during labor such as preeclampsia, a placenta that detaches too soon (placental abruption) or is mislocated (placenta previa), and difficult labor.

    Weight: Women who weigh less than 100 pounds before becoming pregnant are more likely to have small, underweight babies.

    Obese women are more likely to have very large babies, which may be difficult to deliver. Also, obese women are more likely to develop gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, or preeclampsia. They are more like to have a pregnancy that lasts 42 weeks or longer (postterm) and to need a cesarean delivery.

    Height: Women shorter than 5 feet are more likely to have a small pelvis, which may make movement of the fetus through the pelvis and vagina (birth canal) difficult during labor. For example, the fetus’s shoulder is more likely to lodge against the pubic bone. This complication is called shoulder dystocia (see Labor and Delivery Complications: Shoulder Dystocia). Also, short women are more likely to have preterm labor and a baby who has not grown as much as expected.

    Reproductive Abnormalities: Structural abnormalities in the uterus or cervix increase the risk of having a difficult labor, a miscarriage, or a fetus in an abnormal position and of needing a cesarean delivery. These abnormalities include a double uterus or a weak (incompetent) cervix that tends to open (dilate) as the fetus grows.

    Social Characteristics

    Being unmarried or in a lower socioeconomic group increases the risk of problems during pregnancy. The reason these characteristics increase risk is unclear but is probably related to other characteristics that are more common among these women. For example, these women are more likely to smoke and less likely to consume a healthy diet and to obtain appropriate medical care.

    Problems in a Previous Pregnancy

    When women have had a problem in one pregnancy, they are more likely to have a problem, often the same one, in subsequent pregnancies. Such problems include having had any of the following:

    • A premature baby
    • An underweight baby
    • A baby that weighed more than 10 pounds
    • A baby with birth defects
    • A previous miscarriage
    • A late (postterm) delivery (after 42 weeks of pregnancy)
    • Rh incompatibility that required a blood transfusion to the fetus
    • Labor that required a cesarean delivery
    • A baby who died shortly before or after birth (stillbirth)

     

    Women may have a condition that tends to make the same problem recur. For example, women with diabetes are more likely to have babies that weigh more than 10 pounds at birth.

    Women who had a baby with a genetic disorder or birth defect are more likely to have another baby with a similar problem. Genetic testing of the baby, even if stillborn, and of both parents may be appropriate before another pregnancy is attempted (see Genetic Disorders Detection: Genetic Screening). If these women become pregnant again, tests such as high-resolution ultrasonography, chorionic villus sampling, and amniocentesis may help determine whether the fetus has a genetic disorder or birth defect. These women may be referred to a specialist.

    Having had five or more pregnancies increases the risk of very rapid labor and excessive bleeding after delivery. Having had twins or more fetuses in one pregnancy (multiple births) increases the risk of a mislocated placenta (placenta previa—see Pregnancy Complications: Placenta Previa).

    Disorders Present Before Pregnancy

    Before becoming pregnant, women may have a disorder that can increase the risk of problems during pregnancy (see Pregnancy Complicated by Disease). These women should talk with a doctor and try to get in the best physical condition possible before they become pregnant. After they become pregnant, they may need special care, often from an interdisciplinary team. The team may include an obstetrician (who may also be a specialist in the disorder), a specialist in the disorder, and other health care practitioners (such as nutritionists).

    Last full review/revision December 2008 by Christian M. Briery, MD; John Morrison, MD

  • wendy-banks
    Risk Factors That Develop During Pregnancy
     

    During pregnancy, a problem may occur or a condition may develop to make the pregnancy high risk. For example, pregnant women may be exposed to something that can cause birth defects (teratogens), such as radiation, certain chemicals, drugs, or infections. Or a disorder may develop. Some disorders are related to (are complications of) pregnancy.

    Drugs

    Some drugs taken during pregnancy cause birth defects—see Drug Use During Pregnancy). Examples are isotretinoin Some Trade Names
    ACCUTANE
    (used to treat severe acne), some anticonvulsants, lithium Some Trade Names
    LITHOBID
    , some antibiotics (such as streptomycin, kanamycin, and tetracycline Some Trade Names
    SUMYCIN
    ), thalidomide Some Trade Names
    THALOMID
    , warfarin , and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (if taken during the last two trimesters). Taking drugs that block the actions of folate (folic acid), such as the immunosuppressant methotrexate Some Trade Names
    TREXALL
    or the antibiotic trimethoprim, can also cause birth defects. A deficiency of folate increases the risk of having a baby with a birth defect. Early in pregnancy, women are asked if they are using any of these drugs.

    Women are also asked if they use any recreational drugs. Of particular concern are alcohol, cocaine, and nicotine Some Trade Names
    NICORETTENICOTROL
    (in cigarette smoking). All of these drugs can cause miscarriage or cause the baby to be underweight or to have birth defects. These drugs have the following risks:

    • Alcohol: The risk of mental retardation is increased. Fetal alcohol syndrome is also possible (see Drug Use During Pregnancy: Alcohol).
    • Cocaine: The risk of premature detachment of the placenta (placental abruption), premature birth, and stillbirth is increased. The fetus may not grow as much as expected.
    • Smoking cigarettes: The risk of stillbirth and pregnancy complications, such as premature labor, placenta previa, placental abruption, and premature rupture of membranes, is increased. The fetus may not grow as much as expected, and children are more likely to have behavioral problems and mental retardation.

     

    Disorders That Develop During Pregnancy

    During pregnancy, women may develop disorders that are not directly related to pregnancy (see Pregnancy Complicated by Disease). Some disorders increase the risk of problems for pregnant women or the fetus. They include disorders that cause a high fever, infections, and disorders that require abdominal surgery. Certain disorders are more likely to occur during pregnancy because of the many changes pregnancy causes in a woman’s body. Examples are thromboembolic disorders, anemia, and urinary tract infections.

    Pregnancy Complications

    Pregnancy complications are problems that occur only during pregnancy (see Pregnancy Complications). They may affect the woman, the fetus, or both and may occur at different times during the pregnancy. For example, complications such as a mislocated placenta (placenta previa) or premature detachment of the placenta from the uterus (placental abruption) can cause bleeding from the vagina during pregnancy. Women who have heavy bleeding are at risk of losing the baby or of going into shock and, if not promptly treated, of dying during labor and delivery.

    Last full review/revision December 2008 by Christian M. Briery, MD; John Morrison, MD

     

     
     

    You’re welcome dear,

  • bei1052

    Number one, if you don’t like my source, you’re more then welcome to find one which disputes it. Number two, I have no idea what all of the above posted has to do with anything. In fact, it has nothing to do with anything, as the girl wants to keep the baby. Are you telling me that she should be forced into an abortion for whatever reason even if she doesn’t want to have an abortion? I thought all you pro-choicers were against such a thing.

     

    Perhaps you truly are fitting of the anti-life, or even pro-abortion, label?

  • prochoiceferret

    I have no idea what all of the above posted has to do with anything.

    Well, of course you don’t. For anti-choicers, pregnancy risks and complications are figments of the imagination, mere excuses for the unmitigated evil of abortion.

    it has nothing to do with anything, as the girl wants to keep the baby.

    Can you point me to the part that says that she made this decision with knowledge of the risks that her young body will present? Did she say that she was willing to carry the pregnancy to term, even if it resulted in her death? Do you suppose she and her mother have heard a lot of people who are not medical experts tell them that sure, she can give birth to the child just fine, it’ll be no different than if she were 16 or 20?

    Are you telling me that she should be forced into an abortion for whatever reason even if she doesn’t want to have an abortion? I thought all you pro-choicers were against such a thing.

    Of course we are against forced abortion. But are you saying that she should make the decision not to have an abortion without knowledge of all the risks posed by her not-fully-developed body? I thought all you anti-choicers were for the whole informed-consent thing.

  • wendy-banks

    What the information PROVES is how dangerous it is for both MOTHER AND CHILD for a TEN YEAR OLD to carry to term.

    And BTW, at ten she is not old enought to deside crap like this herself. And, also, I DO NOT believe in forced abortion, anymore than I believe in forced birth– That’s what PRO-CHOICE means. Sex and reproduction with all the facts. But, in this case the FACTS need to be made clear to the mother of the ten-year-old.  And quite frankly, I think the man whom impregnated her should be gelded with a dull knife.

    And as for proveing the facts– I just did– It’s called the Merck Manuel– It’s a medical reference book–   Most public libraries have in reference section–   Enlighten yourself dude/dudette as your posts show how ignorant you truely are.

  • wendy-banks

    Thanks, ProChoiceFerret! *smiles*

  • colleen

    Number one, if you don’t like my source, you’re more then welcome to find one which disputes it.

    Look, your original post was disputing a source. We’re supposed to produce yet another source to dispute some crap you read on a fox news site? Stop wasting our time.

    Number two, I have no idea what all of the above posted has to do with anything.

    I do believe that. Anyone cruel and clueless enough to believe that it’s a laudatory or moral idea to force a raped 10 year old to gestate a child can’t be adept at connecting even very simple dots.

    In fact, it has nothing to do with anything, as the girl wants to keep the baby.

    So, should 10 year olds be able to consent to sex?

  • bei1052

    Look, your original post was disputing a source. We’re supposed to produce yet another source to dispute some crap you read on a fox news site? Stop wasting our time.

     

    I think you should try rereading the OP again. It quotes part of an article from the Catholic News Agency, and then later goes on to state that the author could find no other media outlet that confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story. Hence my initial post, which disputes no story already posted and confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story. 

     

    So, please, don’t waste my time.

     

    I do believe that. Anyone cruel and clueless enough to believe that it’s a laudatory or moral idea to force a raped 10 year old to gestate a child can’t be adept at connecting even very simple dots.

     

    Except the girl is giving birth because she is CHOOSING to give birth. Or does the choice mantra only work if the “choice” is to have an abortion?

     

    So, should 10 year olds be able to consent to sex?

     

    Should she be forced into an abortion if she doesn’t want to have an abortion?

  • bei1052

    Well, of course you don’t. For anti-choicers, pregnancy risks and complications are figments of the imagination, mere excuses for the unmitigated evil of abortion.

     

    Or, and bear with me here, I don’t see what the above has to do with anything I typed out because, and this is rather important, the girl isn’t being made to give birth “against her will”, which the OP purports. Rather, she’s giving birth because she wants to give birth (remember that peskey ‘c’ word?). I’m sure, however, that you will respond with something completely unrelated, though.

     

    Can you point me to the part that says that she made this decision with knowledge of the risks that her young body will present? Did she say that she was willing to carry the pregnancy to term, even if it resulted in her death? Do you suppose she and her mother have heard a lot of people who are not medical experts tell them that sure, she can give birth to the child just fine, it’ll be no different than if she were 16 or 20?

     

    Oh, I see. So not only are the girl and her mother ignorant when it comes to the risks involved in pregnancy, but whenever a woman decides to to have an abortion, she’s doing so with all the requisite information; yet when a woman decides to give birth, she’s doing so because she doesn’t realize that she can have an abortion or without knowing what giving birth entails? Can you explain to me how you came to those conclusions please?

     

    Of course we are against forced abortion. But are you saying that she should make the decision not to have an abortion without knowledge of all the risks posed by her not-fully-developed body? I thought all you anti-choicers were for the whole informed-consent thing.

     

    And you know she didn’t know what the risks involved in pregnancy are how? Could you show me anything which proves this to be true (to make use of a common addage, the onus is on you prove your assertion; not on me to disprove your assertion)? Or are you simply assuming something must be true for the sake of trying to make a point? I think it’s the latter, but I’m willing to be humored.

     

    PS> For the record, as the girl has already agreed to have a c-section, I think it’s safe to assume that she realizes the risks associated with pregnancy.

  • prochoiceferret

    Or, and bear with me here, I don’t see what the above has to do with anything I typed out because, and this is rather important, the girl isn’t being made to give birth “against her will”, which the OP purports. Rather, she’s giving birth because she wants to give birth (remember that peskey ‘c’ word?). I’m sure, however, that you will respond with something completely unrelated, though.

    Yes, I suppose the girl’s own health and life aren’t really relevant here.

    Oh, I see. So not only are the girl and her mother ignorant when it comes to the risks involved in pregnancy,

    The risks involved in an eleven-year-old having a pregnancy? Sure, quite possibly. It’s not like that’s a common thing in Mexico, you know. (Perhaps you’re confusing it with Thailand?)

    yet hen a woman decides to give bith, she’s doing so because she doesn’t realize that she can have an abortion? Can you explain to me how you came to those conclusions please?

    I didn’t, actually. That was just your anti-choice brain making stuff up again.

    And you know she didn’t know what the risks involved in pregnancy are how? Could you show me anything which proves this to be true (to make use of a common addage, the onus is on you prove your assertion; not on me to disprove your assertion)? Or are you simply assuming something must be true for the sake of trying to make a point? I think it’s the latter, but I’m willing to be humored.

    Neither of us knows which case is true. That’s why womens’ groups are talking with the mother and girl. Of course, that doesn’t stop you from disregarding the whole risks-of-being-pregnant-at-11 issue—not to mention the fact that these two live in the midst of a deeply conservative culture that will go to great lengths to dissuade them from choosing abortion, including medical misinformation—and coming here to scold us for supposedly being “pro-abortion.” Sorry that we’re not so willing to be humorous with you.

    PS> For the record, as the girl has already agreed to have a c-section, I think it’s safe to assume that she realizes the risks associated with pregnancy.

    And people who care about womens’ health and lives don’t think it’s safe to ass-u-me that. They would rather do their own fact-checking. Given that you watch Fox News, however, this motivation probably doesn’t make much sense to you.

  • prochoiceferret

    I think you should try rereading the OP again. It quotes part of an article from the Catholic News Agency, and then later goes on to state that the author could find no other media outlet that confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story. Hence my initial post, which disputes no story already posted and confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story.

    Oh, so the story comes from the journalistic arm of a pedophile-enabling organization. I guess that explains the interest in an 11-year-old girl having been sexually abused. Not exactly what I’d call an objective source, however.

    Except the girl is giving birth because she is CHOOSING to give birth. Or does the choice mantra only work if the “choice” is to have an abortion?

    Gosh, I remember that cute ten-year-old boy who wanted to give his heart (literally) to his best friend who had a congenital cardiac defect and needed a transplant… I think he was talked out of that, however, despite “choosing” to go ahead with it.

    Should she be forced into an abortion if she doesn’t want to have an abortion?

    No. Should she be deceived as to the possible risks and complications of late-term pregnancy and birth at her age?

  • bei1052

    Yes, I suppose the girl’s own health and life aren’t really relevant here.

     

    It’s not really relevant if the girl has already decided to not have an abortion, now is it? Or are you saying that she should have an abortion? Or better yet, that she should be forced into an abortion to save her health even if she doesn’t want it for herself? What’s the matter? Don’t respect the girl’s decision to “control her own reproductive destiny” or whatever the line is that pro-choicers like to use? Is “choice” only a one-way street?

     

     

    The risks involved in an eleven-year-old having a pregnancy? Sure, quite possibly. It’s not like that’s a common thing in Mexico, you know. (Perhaps you’re confusing it with Thailand?)

     

    Quite possibly is a couple of steps away from “yes”. In fact, quite possibly is baseless conjecture. But that’s really all you have. And, no, I’m not confusing Mexico with Thailand. They’re two different continents which speak two different languages.

     

    I didn’t, actually. That was just your anti-choice brain making stuff up again.

     

    I’m pretty sure you didn’t quote all of what I wrote out there, as you left out “or without knowing what giving birth entails”, which is what you did say. Of course, being a ferret, I can’t fault you. The human tongue is quite hard to pick up.

     

    Neither of us knows which case is true. That’s why womens’ groups are talking with the mother and girl. Of course, that doesn’t stop you from disregarding the whole risks-of-being-pregnant-at-11 issue—not to mention the fact that these two live in the midst of a deeply conservative culture that will go to great lengths to dissuade them from choosing abortion, including medical misinformation—and coming here to scold us for supposedly being “pro-abortion.” Sorry that we’re not so willing to be humorous with you.

     

    So lemme’ make sure I understand this correct. On one hand, you make all sorts of fanciful claims about the girl not knowing what she’s getting herself into or her options, yet turn around and say that you really don’t know whether or not that’s true but that it’s probably true? So not only are you backtracking but you’re grasping at straws? Such a shame, really, but I’m not all that surprised, all things considered.

     

    But, anyway, you know why I disregarded it? Because, as you pro-choicers are sooo keen to point out, it’s the girl’s body– not yours– and as a result it’s her decision. Ergo, if she wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth then who am I to say that she shouldn’t? That’s the whole essence of the pro-choice movement, right? Apparently it’s not, because you guys, gals and animals can’t seem to “respect” the fact that the girl wants to keep her baby, as the only choice you respect is the choice to have an abortion.

     

    And people who care about womens’ health and lives don’t think it’s safe to ass-u-me that. They would rather do their own fact-checking. Given that you watch Fox News, however, this motivation probably doesn’t make much sense to you.

     

    Like I wrote out to someone else earlier, you’re more than welcome to find a source which contradicts the one I gave you. In fact, I wholeheartedly think that you should do as much.

  • bei1052

    Oh, so the story comes from the journalistic arm of a pedophile-enabling organization. I guess that explains the interest in an 11-year-old girl having been sexually abused. Not exactly what I’d call an objective source, however.

     

    Well, then find a source which contradicts it. That should be easy, right? Apparently it’s not, seeing as how you’ve yet to do so.

     

    Gosh, I remember that cute ten-year-old boy who wanted to give his heart (literally) to his best friend who had a congenital cardiac defect and needed a transplant… I think he was talked out of that, however, despite “choosing” to go ahead with it.

     

    Aside from the fact that the above is, at best, a red herring, does this mean that just as it’s “okay” to talk a woman out of giving birth in favor of having an abortion, it’d be “okay” to talk a woman out of having an abortion in favor of giving birth? Or, as per usual, is this a case of a one-way street?

     

    Your hypocrisy is showing. And it’s rather blatant, to boot.

     

    No. Should she be deceived as to the possible risks and complications of late-term pregnancy and birth at her age?

     

    And you know she’s being deceived, how? Or is this more of that patented baseless conjecture you’re good at?

  • bei1052

    Firstly, you state that you’re not for forced abortion yet turn around and say that the girl is not old enough to decide this for herself. If the girl is not old enough to decide for herself whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term, then that would mean that someone else is deciding for her, which means that the other party can decide for the girl something she wouldn’t decide for herself, which invariably includes abortion, which would mean that the girl is having an abortion forced upon her. And since, as you said, the girl is not old enough to decide for herself whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then you do, indeed, support forced abortions. QED. Thanks for playing.

     

    Secondly, I do hope you realize that you didn’t “prove” anything. All you did was copy and paste something detailing the risks of pregnancy, which while fascinating and all (not really), had nothing to do with what I typed out, the source I provided or the fact that the girl has decided to carry her pregnancy to term. So what was the point?

  • colleen

    Hence my initial post, which disputes no story already posted and confirms the Catholic News Agency’s story.

    The Catholic News agency was Fox’s sole and original source for the story.

    Should she be forced into an abortion if she doesn’t want to have an abortion?

    I knew that you would be unable to answer the question because you’re pretending that 10 year old children are old enough to make informed, adult decisions and that this child (or her mother) have any legal options. Indeed you’re pretending that the option of a ‘c’ section should erase any concern for life or health of 10 year old pregnant children.

  • colleen

    Aside from the fact that the above is, at best, a red herring, does this mean that just as it’s “okay” to talk a woman out of giving birth in favor of having an abortion, it’d be “okay” to talk a woman out of having an abortion in favor of giving birth? Or, as per usual, is this a case of a one-way street?

    in your development did you decide that 10 year old girls were “women”?

  • bei1052

    in your development did you decide that 10 year old girls were “women”?

     

    I’m just following the pro-choice logic. You know… The one where they argue that abortion is about “women’s rights” while simultaneously fighting against parental consent laws and the like?

  • bei1052

    The Catholic News agency was Fox’s sole and original source for the story.

     

    Oh, it was, was it?

    I knew that you would be unable to answer the question because you’re pretending that 10 year old children are old enough to make informed, adult decisions and that this child (or her mother) have any legal options. Indeed you’re pretending that the option of a ‘c’ section should erase any concern for life or health of 10 year old pregnant children.

     

    I “ignored” your question (which I really didn’t, but you didn’t quite grasp the subtleties of my response) because it’s ridiculous. What you’re in effect saying is that because the girl cannot consent to sex with an adult, which she didn’t even attempt to anyway as she was raped, the girl cannot decide for herself whether or not to have an abortion and that someone else can make that “choice” for her. Not only does this effectively make you for forced abortions (What if the girl doesn’t want an abortion? Are you going to say that she has to have one?), but it contradicts the whole pro-choice mantra.

     

    Anyway, let’s, for example, assume that the girl wanted to have an abortion. What are the chances that you’d hop up and down screaming about how the girl shouldn’t be allowed to do just that as she cannot make an informed decision? I’m going to guess it’s somewhere between 0% and 0%. So spare me with the whole “informed consent” line. It’s rubbish, and you wouldn’t apply it if the situations were reverese. You see, the issue isn’t about any health concerns. That’s a red herring. It’s about whether or not the girl can, as the pro-choice crowd is so adamant about, decide for herself her “reproductive choices”. And if she wants to give birth to a baby, then explain to me the problem? There is none, except for the fact that you don’t like that she’s decided to give birth which, I guess, would make you fitting of the pro-abortion label.

     

    I guess the only “choice” you respect is the one to have an abortion.

  • colleen

    I’m just following the pro-choice logic.

    No, you’re pretending that raped 10 year old child are as intellectually and physically developed as 16 year olds while simultaneously insisting that we should all believe the Catholic News Agency is an unbiased source.

  • colleen

    which I really didn’t, but you didn’t quite grasp the subtleties of my response

    Rank cowardice and intellectual dishonesty are “subtle”?

    I guess the only “choice” you respect is the one to have an abortion.

    1. The Mexican government and the Catholic church have left this child and her mother no legal choice at all. I do not believe the fox news report, you or, most particularly, such notorious liars as the Catholic News agency on this matter.

    2. 10 year olds are not capable of informed consent in anything, much less life and death decisions.

    3. That said, I believe that anyone who would insist that a child this young carry a pregnancy to term or advise her to do so is just as vile as the asshole who impregnated her.

    and, finally,

    4. the fact that you not only appear to be unable to make a significant distinction between 10 year old girls and adult or teen-aged women but also are trying to bully everyone else into this warped view is decidedly creepy.

  • bei1052

    No, you’re pretending that raped 10 year old child are as intellectually and physically developed as 16 year olds while simultaneously insisting that we should all believe the Catholic News Agency is an unbiased source.

     

    Oh? So you’re for making a ten-year old get an abortion even if she doesn’t want one? I guess you really are for forced abortions? Who knew (I did, but I won’t point that out)?

     

    And, still, I’m waiting for you to provide a source which contradicts the two you were given. Why do you adamantly refuse to do so? It couldn’t be because you can’t find anything which contradicts the two sources you were given, can it?

  • bei1052

    Rank cowardice and intellectual dishonesty are “subtle”?

     

    Oh, look. Petty insults. How quaint. Surely, you can do better?

     

    1. The Mexican government and the Catholic church have left this child and her mother no legal choice at all. I do not believe the fox news report, you or, most particularly, such notorious liars as the Catholic News agency on this matter.

     

    The child doesn’t want an abortion. You don’t have to believe anything, but the simple fact is that you have not produced nor will you be able to produce anything which states that the girl doesn’t want the child and is seeking to have an abortion. So you can have fun practicing willful ignorance if you choose to do so, but that’s not going to change the fact that the child wants to have the baby.

     

    2. 10 year olds are not capable of informed consent in anything, much less life and death decisions.

     

    So someone else can make the ten-year old abort even if the ten -year old doesn’t want to have an abortion? Because that’s precisely what it means, as you’re saying that the ten year old can’t decide for herself anything and that someone else thusly has to decide for her. Thank you for proving what has long since been known– that pro-choicers are, indeed, for forced abortions.

     

    3. That said, I believe that anyone who would insist that a child this young carry a pregnancy to term or advise her to do so is just as vile as the asshole who impregnated her. and, finally,

     

    Continue to ignore this as you want, but the girl wants to carry the pregnancy to term. Do you not care what she wants?

     

     

    4. the fact that you not only appear to be unable to make a significant distinction between 10 year old girls and adult or teen-aged women but also are trying to bully everyone else into this warped view is decidedly creepy.

     

    The fact that I’m applying the pro-choice argument in regards to “who decides”; the fact that I’m saying that no one should be forced into an abortion if they don’t want an abortion; and the fact that I’m pointing out to you that the child wants to keep the baby is decidedly creepy…

     

    …Only in the mind of a pro-choicer. And yet pro-choicers wonder why they have public relation problems. In any case, I think you might want to go back to the proverbial drawing board and try again. And if you’re just going to continue to ignore what’s being presented to you in favor of some preconceived notions, then I’ve got better things to do (Like watch basketball).

  • paul-bradford

    Reading this thread I can’t help but think that there are some posters — even some posters who claim to be Pro-Choice — who have already made up their minds what the “right” choice is.

     

    If you take the attitude that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether or not to terminate a pregnancy aren’t you allowing her that right even if she’s “wrong”?  Even if she’s terribly, ridiculously, hopelessly, outrageously, fatally wrong?

  • wendy-banks

    Who chooses?

    In this case the MOTHER of the ten-year-old. There is a great deal of difference between the decision making power of a ten-year-old and say a fifteen or sixteen-year-old. But, what in the fuck do I care? It’s not MY kid.

    If you really would prefer the kid take the chance on dying, you and Bei, that just proves to me what kind of heartless asses you both are.

    In the eyes of the catholic church, they more than likely think she deserved the rape– She was after all just a female– born to be a broodmare and servant to men. Am I pissed that so little value is put on her life? Damn strait. But, then, I’m just an evil ungodly feminist pro-choicer.

    But, hey, she wants to choose to have the kid and the odds are more-that-likely have a bad outcome– She should knock herself out. Like I said, she’s not my kid.

  • wendy-banks

    Perhaps you truly are fitting of the anti-life, or even pro-abortion, label?

    Just because I put more value on the girl’s life I’m anti-life or pro-abortion? You are a piece of work, you know that?

  • colleen

    Reading this thread I can’t help but think that there are some posters — even some posters who claim to be Pro-Choice — who have already made up their minds what the “right” choice is.

    I can’t help but think that even the Catholic laity are unable to distinguish between adults and little children when it comes to sex and reproduction.

  • colleen

    The child doesn’t want an abortion.

    Well you certainly believe that and you believe it because you’re inclined to believe fox news and the Catholic news agency. That’s the ‘evidence’ you have produced to back up this belief.
    What I believe is that I don’t know what the child wants or what her mother wants and neither do you. I cannot imagine any mother wanting her 10 year old daughter to suffer through a pregnancy that may disable or kill her. Please go bully another blog and stop wasting my time.

    So someone else can make the ten-year old abort even if the ten -year old doesn’t want to have an abortion?

    I do not believe that 10 year olds should be used for sex by their male relatives or as incubators by the Catholic church. I believe that 10 year old girls should be playing with dolls and learning to read.

    Continue to ignore this as you want, but the girl wants to carry the pregnancy to term. Do you not care what she wants?

    The fact that I do not share your belief does not mean I’m ignoring it, I understand that you believe this. Do I find your belief pathetic and credulous? sure. Have you managed to adequately prove the validity of your belief? not even close.

    I understand that you’re flailing around trying to establish that because we would like to save the lives and preserve the health of raped and pregnant 10 year olds we’re not really pro-choice but all you guys manage to demonstrate is what massive assholes you are. And really, we didn’t need anymore proof. Go away and stop wasting our time.

  • bei1052

    Well you certainly believe that and you believe it because you’re inclined to believe fox news and the Catholic news agency. That’s the ‘evidence’ you have produced to back up this belief. What I believe is that I don’t know what the child wants or what her mother wants and neither do you. I cannot imagine any mother wanting her 10 year old daughter to suffer through a pregnancy that may disable or kill her. Please go bully another blog and stop wasting my time.

     

    So, effectively, you ignore the two sources you were given on account that you don’t like them, refusing to provide any source which states that either the girl wants an abortion or that her mother wants her to have an abortion, instead choosing to claim that you don’t know what the girl wants and then call me a bully, which makes little sense all things considered? Uh-huh… Right.

     

    I do not believe that 10 year olds should be used for sex by their male relatives or as incubators by the Catholic church. I believe that 10 year old girls should be playing with dolls and learning to read.

     

    That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with the girl deciding to go through with her pregnancy?

     

    The fact that I do not share your belief does not mean I’m ignoring it, I understand that you believe this. Do I find your belief pathetic and credulous? sure. Have you managed to adequately prove the validity of your belief? not even close.

     

    This isn’t a matter of “sharing my beliefs”. In fact, I haven’t made any reference to my “beliefs”. This is a matter of you blatantly refusing to acknowledge that which you don’t like.

     

    I understand that you’re flailing around trying to establish that because we would like to save the lives and preserve the health of raped and pregnant 10 year olds we’re not really pro-choice but all you guys manage to demonstrate is what massive assholes you are. And really, we didn’t need anymore proof. Go away and stop wasting our time.

     

    I’m not the one flailing around. You are. I’m not the one stating that someone should be forced into an abortion, even if they don’t want to have an abortion. You are. I’m not the one who continues to ignore these two facts. You are. So, really… Who’s wasting whose time?

     

    Oh, and if you don’t like my posts then don’t read them. That’s the beauty of the internet.

  • bei1052

    Just because I put more value on the girl’s life I’m anti-life or pro-abortion? You are a piece of work, you know that?

     

    Only someone who is anti-life or pro-abortion would force someone into an abortion when they don’t want one. That’s why. But, as I said earlier, “choice” apparently only works one way, and the only choice to be “respected” is the one to abort.

     

    And I know I’m a piece of work. Thanks for noticing.

  • paul-bradford

    If you really would prefer the kid take the chance on dying, you and Bei, that just proves to me what kind of heartless asses you both are.


     

    Wendy,

     

    It might be that you and I would have a better chance at a productive conversation if you didn’t start things off by calling me a ‘heartless ass’.  First of all, we’re in agreement that the MOTHER ought to be the one who chooses.  Neither you nor I think that a ten year old ought to be entrusted with such an important decision even though it’s her life that is affected.  I generally believe that a woman should make her own pregnancy decisions.  That’s why I claim to be Pro-Choice.  But there are limits to my willingness to let a woman decide.  I don’t think a young girl should make her own decision nor do I think a mentally incompetent woman should make her own decision.  In both cases I think that a parent or guardian should decide on behalf of the woman.

     

    I point this out, not because I’m a heartless ass, but because I don’t think it’s wise to be a Pro-Choice extremist.  There are women who shouldn’t be making their own pregnancy decisions.

     

    You and I are each taking a modified Pro-Choice stance and we’ve each arrived at the conclusion that the mother should be making the decision.  Your attitude, though, is that “she’s not my kid”.  My attitude is that I can never completely absolve myself from an obligation to care about what happens to other people so I do think I ought to be concerned for the ten year old’s welfare even though she’s “not my kid”.  Her welfare matters.  It matters whether she lives or dies or suffers bodily or emotional harm.  Even thought she’s “not my kid.”

     

    The mother ought to be making the decision — but there’s no reason we should be uncaring about whether the right decision is made.  The right decision will be made if the risk of the child dying or suffering serious harm in the event that no abortion is performed is weighed correctly against the certainty that the grandchild would die if there is an abortion.  The mother is responsible for the welfare of both children and it’s not completely obvious what she ought to decide — but it does matter that she decide well.

    • saltyc

      The right decision will be made if the risk of the child dying or suffering serious harm in the event that no abortion is performed is weighed correctly against the certainty that the grandchild would die if there is an abortion.  The mother is responsible for the welfare of both children

      This just shows to me what an alien creature you are. Sick, sick sick. A ten year old is pregnant and the right thing to do is to view her ZBEF as a human with rights equal to hers. This just plain turns my stomach. Please tell me you were never a parent.

    • ahunt

      The mother ought to be making the decision — but there’s no reason we should be uncaring about whether the right decision is made.  The right decision will be made if the risk of the child dying or suffering serious harm in the event that no abortion is performed is weighed correctly against the certainty that the grandchild would die if there is an abortion.

       

      You cannot be serious.

  • paul-bradford

    colleen,

     

    You regularly claim that I’m not “really” Pro-Choice because, even though I believe a woman ought to make her own decision I have a pretty firm idea about what the “right” decision is.  You yourself have a firm idea about what the “right” decision is in this case.

     

    To my way of thinking, we’re both Pro-Choice and we’re both opinionated about what choice a woman “ought” to make.

     

     

  • wendy-banks

    Your hate toward women and love of the fetus shows in your posts dude. Didn’t I just SAY that she could do what she wanted? Stop reading into my posts what isn’t there.

    Frankly your posts and attitude displayed therein is becoming highly abusive.  You just hate me because I won’t bow down to what the church and ‘superior’ men like you think.

    Again, pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion or anti-life.

  • prochoiceferret

    Well, then find a source which contradicts it. That should be easy, right? Apparently it’s not, seeing as how you’ve yet to do so.

    That line didn’t work so well for the UFO conspiracy theorists, either.

     

    But don’t worry. If the NAMBLA News Wire comes out with an expose on how all anti-choicers are devil worshippers, we won’t put the onus on you to “find a source which contradicts it.”

    Aside from the fact that the above is, at best, a red herring,

    Of course. This girl’s life obviously isn’t worth fish-with-ketchup to you.

    does this mean that just as it’s “okay” to talk a woman out of giving birth in favor of having an abortion, it’d be “okay” to talk a woman out of having an abortion in favor of giving birth? Or, as per usual, is this a case of a one-way street?

    It’s okay if actual medical facts are used, sans emotional pressuring and blackmail. Unfortunately, the anti-choice movement doesn’t have a good track record with those.

    Your hypocrisy is showing. And it’s rather blatant, to boot.

    No, that’s just having the upper hand in an argument. You just haven’t ventured outside of Fox News and Lifesite long enough to recognize it.

    And you know she’s being deceived, how? Or is this more of that patented baseless conjecture you’re good at?

    Sorry, I didn’t know that Mexico was a pro-choice mecca where all women have access to accurate medical knowledge and reproductive health care, and the freedom to make the choices that are best for them without others bringing ideological pressure to bear.

  • prochoiceferret

    It’s not really relevant if the girl has already decided to not have an abortion, now is it?

    Of course it’s not relevant if she was told that she could carry the pregnancy to term, and give birth, without any risk whatsoever to her health and life, and that if she had an abortion, she and her “little brother” would suffer in Hell for the rest of eternity. All that matters is that she gave the answer that the overwhelmingly conservative majority in the country wanted to hear.

    Quite possibly is a couple of steps away from “yes”. In fact, quite possibly is baseless conjecture. But that’s really all you have.

    Yes, I’m only conjecturing that Mexican women are not into the whole “maternal martyrdom” thing. Just a guess, really—most people seem to think that dying is a bad thing. Though I can’t take that for granted with you anti-choicers.

    I’m pretty sure you didn’t quote all of what I wrote out there, as you left out “or without knowing what giving birth entails”, which is what you did say.

    What is it with anti-choice posters complaining about how their posts are quoted? Are you related to BornIn1984, by any chance?

    So lemme’ make sure I understand this correct. On one hand, you make all sorts of fanciful claims about the girl not knowing what she’s getting herself into or her options, yet turn around and say that you really don’t know whether or not that’s true but that it’s probably true?

    Why not? You’re happy to do that when you can quote two biased news sources that don’t offer any information one way or the other on that point.

    So not only are you backtracking but you’re grasping at straws? Such a shame, really, but I’m not all that surprised, all things considered.

     

    Well, of course you’re not. You say “she said no to abortion!” as if there were nothing more to the story. It’s hardly a surprise that Fox News does such a poor job of journalism when viewers like you don’t demand any better of it.

    But, anyway, you know why I disregarded it? Because, as you pro-choicers are sooo keen to point out, it’s the girl’s body– not yours– and as a result it’s her decision. Ergo, if she wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth then who am I to say that she shouldn’t? That’s the whole essence of the pro-choice movement, right? Apparently it’s not, because you guys, gals and animals can’t seem to “respect” the fact that the girl wants to keep her baby, as the only choice you respect is the choice to have an abortion.

    If she and her mother really do want to put her health and life at risk, and they’re not being pressured or misled by others to do what the conservative majority in the country believes is the right thing to do (carry the baby even if it kills you, because abortion even to save your life is absolutely impermissible), then we will respect that choice. In the absence of credible evidence to that effect, however, we’ll continue making fun of you and the fact that you really don’t give a s*** whether this girl lives or dies, as long as you think you have another rhetorical weapon to use against us in the abortion culture war.

    Like I wrote out to someone else earlier, you’re more than welcome to find a source which contradicts the one I gave you. In fact, I wholeheartedly think that you should do as much.

    Man, you could have had a great career with the Weekly World News

  • crowepps

    What is it with anti-choice posters complaining about how their posts are quoted?

    You got me.  Apparently they just live to complain.  They complain about the subjects of the articles, they complain about the amount of research cited in the articles, they complain about the sentence structure and word choices of the authors, they complain that the people posting the articles aren’t ‘qualified’ to have an opinion, they complain about the choice of wording in our posts commenting on the articles, they complain the commenters aren’t ‘qualified’ to have an opinion, they complain that they feel entitled to ‘respect’ and aren’t getting sufficient subservience, they complain that we stubbornly resist acknowledging the brilliance of every jugheaded notion they come up with, and I am really, REALLY tired of being asked to do further research for them because they “don’t have any actual facts on the matter but just know that’s wrong”.

     

    When they can’t find anything on the site to specifically complain about, they complain about how other people have ‘made them’ be bitter, angry and/or violent, they complain about their pathetic personal lives, they complain about the women they (used to) know and how unfair it is that they were abandoned, they complain about the ‘vindictive bitches’ OTHER men have told them about (since there’s no reason not to believe EVERY WORD the male dumpee related was the GOSPEL TRUTH), and they complain about the mythical FemiNazis who have ruined their chances in life by setting up Domestic Violence Shelters and thus enabling their girlfriends and wives to flee them.  It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that just perhaps the motivation to do so was not just a disagreement over whether the nickname  ‘b*tch’ is acceptable or whether getting slapped around is part of foreplay, but perhaps an inability to listen to one more mind numbing second of all that WHINING.

     

    In no way am I speaking for the rest of the “guys, gals and animals” who maintain and inhabit this site, but I for one am pretty tired of attempting to respond to the actual policy issues in their posts while gritting my teeth to rein myself in from engaging with the belligerent and abusive mindset clearly evidenced by the personal comments.

  • crowepps

    While I don’t know any of the particulars of this case beyond what’s been stated here, my ‘choice’ would be for the 10-year victim of rape to live.

     

    I realize that the “certain human weight” of that can’t be a priority for the Church officials who seem to have separated her from her mother and who now seem to be in charge of ‘explaining’ her likely survival to her so she can make her “free choice” between dying and going to hell, and I’m sure they’ve been absolutely honest about the slim chances that her child itself has of surviving, and personally I think that’s a ‘scandal’.

     

    If it’s opinionated to be sad that she’s a likely human sacrifice immolated in service to the Church’s obsession with ‘spiritualizing’ sex, so be it – I’m still sad.

    • paul-bradford

      I’m sure they’ve been absolutely honest about the slim chances that her child itself has of surviving.

       

      crowepps,

       

      You and I agree that when members of my Church withhold, or misconstrue information in order to get people to do things they wouldn’t do if they were properly informed it’s a ‘scandal’.  Like you, I only know a little about this case; but the information I have is that the girl is now in protective custody and her health care decisions will be made by an agent of the state (who, undoubtedly, is devoutly Catholic).

       

      What if the girl were in your hands.  How would you go about deciding whether or not the girl should get an abortion.  Doctors, of course, can only imperfectly predict outcomes, but suppose they convinced you that there was a better than 50% chance that both the girl and the baby could survive pregnancy and childbirth.  What sort of calculations would you be making in your mind to decide what to do?

  • wendy-banks

    Lookie lookie what I found about good ‘ol Bei.

    http://community.beliefnet.com/bei1052

    From Cilvilzation Fanatics Fourum

    Bei1052
    Jul 02, 2009, 03:54 PM
    Is it possible to “crash” the AI’s economy by spreading a corporation (Or two) to each of its cities and causing its maintenance costs to skyrocket, or would the benefits of said corporations outweigh the negatives?

    Also, even I’m not so sure you can do this (I’ve never used the “influence civics” option), but has anyone ever tried switching an AI who loves to spam units into pacifism via spies? I’m thinking that, if you can and it works, you could effectively wreak havoc on a warmongerer’s economy.

    And he’s nuts about the Power Rangers…
    And here I’m used to dealing with strait religious fanatics, but religious fanatics that like MUDs? Nah, I prefer reading science stuff myself.
    Dude– you are too easy– pwned
  • colleen

    You regularly claim that I’m not “really” Pro-Choice because, even though I believe a woman ought to make her own decision I have a pretty firm idea about what the “right” decision is.

    ever writing about that instance of your seemingly endless misrepresentations and self-aggrandizement so I’m naturally surprised to hear I think that or that I’ve expressed myself quite that stupidly. However I’m quite used to your telling me what I think about you and how wrong I am and how misunderstood you are.

    To my way of thinking, we’re both Pro-Choice and we’re both opinionated about what choice a woman “ought” to make.

    She is 10 years old.
    I think you are consistently failing to recognize how inappropriate and brutal it is for men and churches to use little girls as if they were women. I wish I could say I was surprised.

    • wendy-banks

      It’s also the church (nuns, priests, ministers, what have you) people that use little boys (and little girls) as if they were adults.

      *sniffs* I smell something rotten in the catholic church.

    • paul-bradford

      I think you are consistently failing to recognize how inappropriate and brutal it is for men and churches to use little girls as if they were women.

       

      colleen,

       

      Just because I disagree with you about this case doesn’t mean I approve of the way the Church has behaved.  It’s wrong to “use little girls”.  Moreover it’s wrong to “use” women.  It’s also wrong to use men.  It seems to me that the Church has been trying to control the girl’s pregnancy decisions.  That’s wrong, and I have no trouble whatsoever in recognizing that’s wrong.  I’m not interested in controlling what happens.  I have a different object in mind.  I’m trying to engage people in conversation about whether four month old fetuses matter as much as ten year old girls.

       

      I would like you to draw a distinction in your mind between me trying to talk to you about the moral value of human life and Church officials in Mexico coercing a little girl to do something exceedingly dangerous.

    • paul-bradford

      She is 10 years old.

       

      colleen,

       

      This girl has been victimized by a heinous crime and she’s suffered grievously as a result.  She’s powerless and vulnerable and, naturally, anybody with a drop of empathy is going to have their heart go out to her.  You may not believe this, but I actually DO have a drop of empathy and what I want is for the stepfather to have his balls put into a grinder and for the girl to get the best care, emotionally and physically, that it’s possible to give her.

       

      But what happens?  Right away, you Reproductive Health Advocates start suggesting abortion.  Egads!!  You’re proposing that an even more heinous crime be perpetrated on an even more powerless and vulnerable victim who would then suffer even more grievously.  Well, THAT will certainly make things better!

       

      I have to be careful, because in situations like this my understanding, empathy and compassion get diverted from the victim who’s already undergone the trauma and toward the one who might soon be victimized by trauma.  The impression you get is that I don’t care enough about the girl.  That’s rubbish.  It would more accurate to point out that you don’t care a bit about the fetus.  The fetus might just as well be a block of wood for all you care.

  • wendy-banks

    In no way am I speaking for the rest of the “guys, gals and animals” who maintain and inhabit this site, but I for one am pretty tired of attempting to respond to the actual policy issues in their posts while gritting my teeth to rein myself in from engaging with the belligerent and abusive mindset clearly evidenced by the personal comments.

    Sic em, crowepps.

    I’m having a really hard time not frothing and swearing at them myself– Down temper, down. Irrational people, whom refuse to take the scientific facts as FACTS make me SO angry. Hey, I admit I’m wrong when the facts prove it. Why can’t they? I’ve eaten my own words enough (crowepps, pass the pepper would you? Thanks.)  I mean if I can do it why can’t they?

  • bei1052

    Your hate toward women and love of the fetus shows in your posts dude. Didn’t I just SAY that she could do what she wanted? Stop reading into my posts what isn’t there.

     

    Perhaps you you need to re-read your posts. You said that the girl is not old enough to decide for herself whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Therefore, explain to me how can she do what she wants when you state that she can’t make an “informed decision” at her age? You’re contradicting yourself.


    Frankly your posts and attitude displayed therein is becoming highly abusive.  You just hate me because I won’t bow down to what the church and ‘superior’ men like you think.

     

    Well, for one, I haven’t been to church in, ugh… A very long time. Secondly, I don’t hate anyone, nor do I particularly think I’m “superior” to anyone. But nice try though.

     

    Again, pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion or anti-life.

     

    I never said it was. I did say, however, that forcing a woman to have an abortion is anti-life/pro-abortion. Again, thanks for playing.

     

  • wendy-banks

    Could you show me anything which proves this to be true

     

    Oh, for the love of… I DID PROVE IT. Did you COMPLEATLTY miss the TWO huge quotes from the Merck Manual? THE RISK FOR THIS GIRL AND THE BABY ARE VERY HIGH!

    But, if she and her mother want to accept this risk and chance her dieing, It’s a free country, knock themseves out. (Well, maybe not so much in Mexico) I’m just saying that it is a set of risks I would not allow my daughter to take (She’s eight). I know quite alot about high-risk pregnacies because mine with my daughter WAS concidered high-risk for a number of reasons. Not as high as the ten-year-olds however.

  • bei1052

    And he’s nuts about the Power Rangers… And here I’m used to dealing with strait religious fanatics, but religious fanatics that like MUDs? Nah, I prefer reading science stuff myself. Dude– you are too easy– pwned

     

    Ummm, yeah. I have an account of Beliefnet, I play Civilization 4 (Soon to be 5) and I like Power Rangers/Super Sentai/Tokusatsu. And…? What of it? If that’s all you’ve got, then you’re in deep trouble.

     

    (Oh, and just so you know, Civilization is not a MUD. It’s a turn-based strategy game. I’m pretty sure no one plays MUD’s anymore.)

  • wendy-banks

    Just pointing out that it’s easy to finds out things about people– Like from your attitute.

    Like, you are a Religious fanatic, you think you know more than us mear women, or is just that women that don’t know their place piss you off?

    You know, I’m old enough to remember segregation– I’d think, because you are black, you MIGHT have a problem with slavery, and would not wish the shackles of forced gestation on a person. And yet, you still have not thrown off the irons of your repressive faith. And, no, I don’t believe in that religion crap– I’m the next this to an Atheist. Yeah, yeah, goin’ to hell, yeah, yeah, you’ll pray for me *woop-de-f’ing do*.

    As I said, I’m not into computer games, I prefer science books.

     

  • wendy-banks

    The church I was refering to in this case was the christian church(s) in general and their insistance that women are inferior to men, and their primary duty is to breed and serve men.

    And never insisted the girl get an abortion– I do however think it is a very bad idea for her to try to bring it to term as the odds are very much agaist her and I think there will be a bad outcome for her the child or both–

    What’s the point in talking to you anyhow? It’s like talking to the wall, and you don’t hear the message, you only hear the words twisted and turned around to suit you.

  • wendy-banks

    Firstly, you state that you’re not for forced abortion yet turn around and say that the girl is not old enough to decide this for herself. If the girl is not old enough to decide for herself whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term,

    That’s like saying this person isn’t old enought to drive, she can’t see over the stearing wheel and can barely reach the peddles, and doesn’t know the rules of the road,

     Yet letting her drive anyway, because it’s her decision

  • bei1052

    Just pointing out that it’s easy to finds out things about people– Like from your attitute.

     

    And what, pray tell, does my attitude say?

     

    Like, you are a Religious fanatic, you think you know more than us mear women, or is just that women that don’t know their place piss you off?

     

    Go read some of my posts on Beliefnet. If you did, you’d quickly find out how unreligious I am. Or, I suppose you think that everyone who posts on Beliefnet follows some religion?

     

    You know, I’m old enough to remember segregation– I’d think, because you are black, you MIGHT have a problem with slavery, and would not wish the shackles of forced gestation on a person.

     

    Everyone, except those who advocate for abortion on demand, are for “forced gestation” after some point of pregnancy. And that’s about as far as I’m going to humor the slavery remark.

     

    And yet, you still have not thrown off the irons of your repressive faith. And, no, I don’t believe in that religion crap– I’m the next this to an Atheist. Yeah, yeah, goin’ to hell, yeah, yeah, you’ll pray for me *woop-de-f’ing do*.

     

    Okay…? See my comment towards the top.

     

    As I said, I’m not into computer games, I prefer science books.

     

    …Because you can only play games or read science books.

  • bei1052

    The church I was refering to in this case was the christian church(s) in general and their insistance that women are inferior to men, and their primary duty is to breed and serve men.

     

    All right. I’ll bite. What church is this?

     

    And never insisted the girl get an abortion– I do however think it is a very bad idea for her to try to bring it to term as the odds are very much agaist her and I think there will be a bad outcome for her the child or both

     

    Yes yes. You never insisted the girl get an abortion. You just said that the girl isn’t old enough to make the decision for herself and that the decision to have an abortion should belong to her mother. This, as I’ve pointed out on more than one occassion, means that you’re left with a situation in which the girl can be made to have an abortion even if she doesn’t want it. That, in essence, equals you supporting forced abortions, as whenever you leave the decision to have an abortion to someone else, this is what invariably happens. Try as you may to speak around this point, you can’t.

     

    What’s the point in talking to you anyhow? It’s like talking to the wall, and you don’t hear the message, you only hear the words twisted and turned around to suit you.

     

    English may not be my first language, but I can read what people write out.

  • mechashiva

    You know, as I’m reading through these comments I really don’t see why people are angry at you, Bei. Well rather, I understand why they are angry, but I think you are right.

     

    I’m seeing what looks like cultural imperialism from the posters you’ve been arguing with. They insinuate the mother and daughter have been decieved, provide no source to support the notion that they are ignorant other than “they are in Mexico,” and then refuse to take responsibility for the conclusion of that train of thought… That we know better than they do, and we should intervene if we can in some way.

     

    I don’t see a problem with acknowledging that sentiment as long as it is handled in a responsible way. At some point, it would be appropriate for medical professionals to intervene. Up until that time, the mother’s decision for the daughter to carry to term should be respected and supported… even if we think it is wrong, and even if we don’t think they really understood the decision and its implications. This is something healthcare professionals have to face often.

     

    This whole argument is related to the controversy of informed consent within the medical feild and legal system. It’s actually one of the biggest ethical issues in medicine.

    • colleen

      I’m seeing what looks like cultural imperialism from the posters you’ve been arguing with.

      I must say that I find this conclusion quite a stretch.

      They insinuate the mother and daughter have been decieved

      Perhaps I was not clear. I believe that anyone who believes the reports from fox news and the Catholic news agency have been deceived.

      provide no source to support the notion that they are ignorant other than “they are in Mexico

      Where did anyone say this? The CNA, fox news and one poster were arguing that a 10 year old had made the decision to carry a pregnancy to term. Pointing out that a 10 year old are easily manipulated and are not capable of informed decisions has nothing to do with her nationality, it has to do with her age.

      At some point, it would be appropriate for medical professionals to intervene.

      And what would the medical professionals do? You are aware that she cannot legally have an abortion?

      Up until that time, the mother’s decision for the daughter to carry to term should be respected and supported

      My understanding is that, under Mexican law, the mother is not able to make a decision regarding her daughter’s future because the pregnancy is too far advanced for a legal abortion. Likewise it is my understanding that the Catholic News agency and fox news are the only folks reporting that the child, not the child’s mother, has made the decision to continue the pregnancy and with some enthusiasm.

  • prochoiceferret

    That we know better than they do, and we should intervene if we can in some way.

    Why should we intervene? There’s plenty of pro-choice people in Mexico who are on this already. (Abortion is accessible in Mexico City, after all; it’s the provinces where the procedure is legally and culturally verboten.)

     

    Cultural imperialism is a tendency in these sorts of scenarios, to be sure. But there’s a difference between that, and questioning the narrative we’ve been told, given this particular combination of subject and source. I’d be a lot less skeptical of the reporting if she were forgoing chemotherapy.

    • mechashiva

      I wasn’t suggesting that I think we (by “we” I mean pro-choice Americans, and I should have been clearer) should intervene. That’s the sentiment I picked up from the comment thread.

       

      There definitely is a difference between being skeptical of the information we are being given and cultural imperialism. However, many (not all) of the comments I have read seem to fit squarely in the latter camp, regardless of intention. I think it is because this case deals with individuals rather than general principles, so opinions on either side can seem inappropriately invasive.

       

      I mean, if we are arguing about how knowledgable the girl’s mother is, suggesting she doesn’t have informed consent, and question the autheticity of the story we’re getting, it’s a lot touchier than if we talk about the general state of pregnancy education in Mexico.

  • colleen

    I did say, however, that forcing a woman to have an abortion is anti-life/pro-abortion.

    She is 10 years old.

    • bei1052

      She is 10 years old.

       

      And? That changes the argument, how…?

       

      That’s right. It doesn’t. You see, as I pointed out earlier, if the situation was reversed, and the girl wanted to have an abortion, I’d be willing to bet everything I own that the people going on about how the girl is ten would suddenly change their tune and talk about how the girl should be able to decide what’s best for “her body” and “her health”. In fact, there are already instances of this already.

  • saltyc

    I hope you “pro-lifers” really run with this, and keep insisting that it’s about a woman’s (sic) right. This is a child.

    This really shows the disconnect between you who can’t get pregnant and us mothers of girl children: Please, keep saying it aloud, that a 10-year-old having a baby represents freedom and justice to you. See how that helps your PR problem.

     

    You treat women as though they were children, and children as though they were women that’s your problem, and see no difference. Children never had and never will have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. You can’t be a parent and not know that.

    My 4-year-old daughter says she wants to grow a baby inside her. I told her she’s too small. She changed her mind. Elian Gonzales sais he wanted to stay in America, his father said no, he changed his mind.

     

    The Catholic church is truly twisted at this point, no one I respect can call himself a Catholic anymore. It’s impossible anymore.

    • bei1052

      First and foremost, I believe you might want to exit from your little bubble, as the pro-life movement doesn’t have a PR problem– the pro-choice movement does. In fact, more so than the pro-choice movement, the pro-life movement has been able to frame the terms of the debate, and as a result has seen much broader gains than the pro-choice movement has. But, hey, don’t let facts stand in your way or anything. But moving on…

       

      Explain to me which one represents “freedom”: Forcing someone into having an abortion, or respecting their decision to go through with the pregnancy? I’ll give you a small hint. It’s not the part about “forcing” someone into having an abortion. You see, this is where the blatant hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement comes in to play. On one hand, the most prominent of them fight against parental consent/nofitication laws as a violation of “privacy rights” (Yes, even on this site), yet turn around and argue that minors can’t make an informed decision and as a result the choice to carry a pregnancy to term/have an abortion shouldn’t be theirs. Furthermore, those same people argue that it’s wrong to make someone give birth against their will, yet it’s not wrong to make someone have an abortion against their will. Unfortunately, you can’t have it both ways. In both of these situations, it’s either or. So which is it?

       

      Like I said, it seems the only decision to be “respected” is the one that ends in an abortion.

  • saltyc

     

     You see, as I pointed out earlier, if the situation was reversed, and the girl wanted not to drive a car/smoke/drink/own a gun, I’d be willing to bet everything I own that the people going on about how the girl is ten would suddenly change their tune and talk about how the girl should be able to decide what’s best for “her body” and “her health”. In fact, there are already instances of this already.

     

     

    So therefore, if you want to say that a child would be far far better off not driving, smoking, drinking or shooting a gun, you must first agree that both sides are really against choice for adults, or agree that wanting a child not to do those things that will harm her is just as valid as letting her do so because she allegedly wants to, and wanting not to do them is just as valid as wanting to do them.

     

    PS, you don’t see what difference it makes thats she’s ten? There’s something wrong with you, seriously.

  • colleen

    And? That changes the argument, how…?

    See the bit you wrote that I was responding to? the part where once again you called a 10 year old child a “woman”. I was correcting your attempt at intellectual dishonesty. She is not a woman, she is a child.

    • crowepps

      As I understand the mindset, the theory is that if a female starts menstrating, then she is “old enough” for some male to have sex with her, because if she can become pregnant, then she is a “woman”, even if the average fourth grader on average is only 4.25 feet tall and only weighs 70 pounds, and if the stress of pregnancy on such an immature body kills her, gee, too bad. Because that is what females are FOR, you know, producing babies.  And if they die, well, everybody dies when they’re “used up”.

       

      You have to admit their logic is consistent – they want to delay abortion for adult females at high medical risk until the point at which maternal death is fairly certain “just in case” a miracle might occur and the fetus manage to reach a size where it’s viable, and so it logically follows that waiting until little girls are on the brink of death is also somehow more ‘ethical’.

       

      I find it a little puzzling, though, that although ethics is “moral notions such as good and bad and right and wrong”, so many people seem to feel that the way to determine what is “right and wrong” is to measure by how difficult it is for humans to stomach it. As in “if people have to die to uphold the principle then that must be ‘a higher ethical standard’ and ‘right’ as opposed to a ‘weaker’ principle which would ‘merely’ save their lives without making them suffer first.”

       

      I’m not sure it makes sense to measure right and wrong on a sliding scale of pain, with good, better, best ranked by increasing levels of suffering. So that, to extend this to different areas, the ‘most ethical’ diet to eat would be the one that is the least palatable, the ‘most ethical’ clothing is that which is least attractive, the ‘most ethical’ business is one which barely supports the worker, and the ‘most ethical’ childraising practices those which produce maximum unhappiness in children. Although, come to think of it, those all sound like a good fit to the expressed standards of the typical ‘Christianist’ cult.

  • saltyc

    you keep repeating them,

     

    But the truth remains, that it’s never in a child’s interest to go through with a pregnancy. It is greatly disadvantageous to her small body. If a minor wants to do something that is guaranteed to cause permanent damage to her, her wish should not be promoted and carried out by an adult. I would not give inhalants to minors just because they want them. The choice to not do something harmful is to be respected. So a child’s wish to not have a baby ought to be encouraged and respected, whereas if a child wishes to do become anorexic, inject drugs or otherwise harm herself, then a harm-reduction model is probably best, depending on her age, but not encouraged, promoted or given the same weight as more healthy choices. But then again, if you don’t already know this, I hope you are not a parent or entrusted with the welfare of minors.

     

    Exit my bubble? Why when I do a lot of good? Just last week I helped a 15-year-old get an abortion, without her parent’s consent. She wouldn’t have afforded it if not for me.

    But sure, your side is winning, so don’t have any worries, you won the deciding battles, it’s now time to coast and let your team win. Please just keep saying what you’re saying, you can’t lose.

    • paul-bradford

      Just last week I helped a 15-year-old get an abortion, without her parent’s consent. She wouldn’t have afforded it if not for me.

       

      Salty,

       

      I read the part where you understand the points Bei keeps repeating, but I wonder if you understand how much you lose by breaking this issue up into “sides”.

       

      It is not Pro-Life for a fifteen year old to get an abortion without her parent’s consent.  It’s also not Pro-Life for a fifteen year old to have a baby with or without her parent’s consent.  Pro-Life isn’t about manipulating unwilling women to carry their pregnancies to term.  Pro-Life is about respect.  For women to respect their children before they’re born only gets us part of the way to the goal.  Women (and men) have to respect their children before they’re CONCEIVED.  That way they won’t conceive a child they can’t raise.

       

      When a fifteen year old gets an abortion she demonstrates the fact that she hasn’t been sufficiently supported in her efforts to respect life; but when a fifteen year girl old gets pregnant (or a fifteen year old boy gets someone pregnant) the same lack of respect is demonstrated.

  • wendy-banks

    I cared about her by not wanting her to risk her life on a very high-risk pregnacy. She is TEN and is too young to deside. It then falls to the girl’s mother to deside– but she (the mother) can’t because the girl was taken away by the Mexican version of CPS: See the story.

    10-year-old’s pregnancy fuels Mexican abortion debate

    By the CNN Wire Staff


    April 19, 2010 10:18 p.m. EDT
    It won’t link, sorry, you will have to Bing or Google it.
    And she can indeed deside as SHE IS NOT MY CHILD. If she was I would make the desision for my MINOR child. The desision that would protect the life and health of my child.
    And *scoffs* you are far from pro-choice. And frankly, Paul, it’s not that I don’t want to have productive conversation with you– It’s more like I don’t want to have a conversation with you at all
    • paul-bradford

      [S]he can indeed decide as SHE IS NOT MY CHILD. If she were, I would make the decision for my MINOR child. The decision that would protect the life and health of my child.

       

      Wendy,

       

      One of the criticisms that I regularly receive here is that I tell people what they think.  Actually, the criticism is that I tell women what they think — but since I seldom to never get to talk to a man on this ‘site it’s hard to know whether I’d tell a man what he thinks.

       

      Anyway, I get this criticism from more than one poster so I’ve decided to believe that there’s something to the complaint.  Mindful of this, I want you to know that I am trying as hard as I can to inquire about your thinking rather than to dictate it.

       

      The impression I get from you, Wendy, is that you think this ten year old girl is more important than her four month old fetus.  Is this correct?  Do you believe that the girl’s life matters more than the fetus’ life?  Do you believe that, in the unhappy even that either or both should die, the girl’s death would matter more than the fetus’ death?  I really, truly, honestly don’t want to put words in your mouth and I’m famous for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

       

      If I’m right about this, I have another question.  Do you think every ten year old girl is more important than every four month old fetus?  Do you think that every born person is more important than every unborn person.

       

      Is this article the one you wanted me to read?  It looks as if the girl is in government hands.  That’s a mess in and of itself and it muddies the debate about abortion rights.  My belief is that the unborn have a right to live.  Until we learn more about keeping young fetuses alive outside the womb, a fetus’ right to life obliges a pregnant woman to try and bring the pregnancy to term.  My own opinion is that it’s pointless to try and force a woman to meet her obligation if she doesn’t acknowledge it in and of herself.  I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything.  My hope is to engage people in discussion about the obligations we owe each other.

  • squirrely-girl

    A point I keep coming back to is the idea that within the Catholic church, a ten year old isn’t even old enough to be confirmed. In the eyes of the Church, this girl is a CHILD not yet capable of making adult decisions with regard to her religious participation… yet she’s old enough to “decide” she wants to carry to term?

  • colleen

    You cannot be serious.

    and if we don’t agree with him it’s because we’re a ‘pro-choice extremists’ and lack ‘wisdom’.

  • crowepps

    “Correctly”, I mean.

     

    Kind of goes right along with “I’m ProChoice if the RIGHT decision is made”.

     

    Of course, the most likely thing to happen in the situation of an immature body trying to sustain a pregnancy is fetal death or stillbirth, which is far more dangerous than an abortion, but what the hey, no pain, no gain — let’s just take the chance even if a child’s life is at stake. There’s a PRINCIPLE involved!

     

    “The first thing a principle does is kill somebody.” Dorothy Sayer

  • colleen

    Actually, the criticism is that I tell women what they think — but since I seldom to never get to talk to a man on this ‘site it’s hard to know whether I’d tell a man what he thinks.

    You have many opportunities to talk to men here. You could have spoken to young tthomas last week when he was trying to convince everyone that men should’nt have to financially support the children they’ve fathered. You could have spoken to your ideological bubba in this thread. There are many men who post here. You choose to browbeat and try to manipulate women and then fly into tiny rages when you fail.

    Until we learn more about keeping young fetuses alive outside the womb, a fetus’ right to life obliges a pregnant woman to try and bring the pregnancy to term.

    Once again. Unless you believe that a pregnant 10 year old is, by definition, a woman we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WOMAN.
    No woman is ‘obligated’ to gestate a pregnancy and to imply that a ten year old child should is beneath contempt.

  • paul-bradford

    This just shows to me what an alien creature you are.

     

    Salty,

     

    You’re wrong.  You and I are not creatures alien to each other.  We are made of the same stuff, and our brains work pretty much the same way.  Simply because we’re human we’re both concerned about doing right by other people.  We’re talking about an issue that’s very important to both of us and very important to humanity.  What it boils down to is this: Do we all have equal moral value?  I’m convinced that the peace of the planet depends on people giving proper respect to each other, and to each other’s rights.

     

    Human history is peppered with examples of folks dividing humanity up into two groups and asserting that the people in the group they belong to are superior to the people who aren’t a part of their group.  We’ve divided men from women, white from black, natives from immigrants, able-bodied from handicapped, adherents of the state religion from infidels, and we’re dividing breathers from non-breathers.  Well, actually, YOU’RE making that distinction.  To me, we’re talking about ‘people’ and ‘people’.

     

    Am I right in thinking that you have more empathy for pregnant women than for fetuses?  How is that not dividing people into two groups and deciding that ‘your’ group is better?  It amazes me that so many women on this ‘site consistently take sides with the pregnant woman since not every woman has been pregnant but EVERY woman has been a fetus.  You’d think you’d have some empathy for people who are similar to what you once were.

     

    I think the strong have an obligation to the weak, and the rich have an obligation to the poor.  I believe that I have a duty to take up the cause of the powerless and the vulnerable.  What’s more, I believe YOU have that very same duty.

     

    Cultivating more empathy for the very young doesn’t require you to have less empathy for their mothers.

  • paul-bradford

    … I don’t think it’s a sign of ‘wisdom’, or character for that matter, to be on the right side of the abortion question (or any other question).  We’re not going to arrive at the truth about the rights of the unborn by having the ‘wise’ overpower the ‘foolish’.  We’re going to arrive at the truth by engaging in respectful conversation and by listening to each other.

     

    By the way, colleen, I used the term ‘Pro-Choice extremist’ in reference to people who ALWAYS claim a woman has the right to make her own pregnancy decisions even if the “woman” is ten years old, or mentally disabled.

  • crowepps

    One of the criticisms that I regularly receive here is that I tell people what they think.  Actually, the criticism is that I tell women what they think — but since I seldom to never get to talk to a man on this ‘site it’s hard to know whether I’d tell a man what he thinks.

    I have no problem with you and or anyone else stating what they think I think, since that allows me to correct misapprehensions.

     

    However, that is not my criticism.  My criticism, repeated many times here, is that you have a habit, indeed you’ve stated that your whole purpose here, is to tell people what they SHOULD think.  Women post here that ‘my feeling is this’, ‘my conclusion from the information I have is this’, ‘my concept of my relationship to the fetus is this’, and your response pretty consistently is:

     

    “But that’s not what you SHOULD believe, that’s not what you SHOULD think.  In order to be ‘moral’, a ‘fully evolved human being’, a ‘good woman’, ‘have a life of Joy’, you should instead have the thoughts/emotions/beliefs which I, a man, looking at reproductive from the privileged position of having absolutely NO personal experience in the matter, have decided would be far more appropriate for women who are pregnant.

     

    As in this case, where you ask “Do you believe that, in the unhappy event that either or both should die, the girl’s death would matter more than the fetus’ death?” and, already knowing that your position is going to be that both lives are equivalent, we attempt to answer with only a faint hope that you can grok with the answer.

     

    At this point, the mother has invested an entire pregnancy with all of its biological, emotional and social costs in this little girl.  In addition to that, she has invested 10 years of food, shelter, raising and emotional commitment.  All of that emotional and ‘biological price’ has been paid already to get this 10-year old to this point, and her survival to this point demonstrates the success of that effort and her genetic fitness. THAT is her value and that is what would be lost with her death – that whole entire 11 years ‘work’.

     

    An 18-week fetus, at this point approximately 6 inches long and 7 OUNCES, .006% of the mass of the girl, has very little biological investment involved, and there is about a 20% chance that it may spontaneously abort or not survive birth at all.

     

    Given a choice between the two, I would choose not to risk the 10-year, who has a long reproductive life ahead of her in which she could have 20 other children, for one more second.

     

    You are conflating philosophical and biological value and declaring that the philosophical value is the only thing that is important.  To me it seems as silly as declaring equivalency  between a Cadillac and a roller skate.

  • paul-bradford

    Kind of goes right along with “I’m ProChoice if the RIGHT decision is made”.

     

    crowepps,

     

    I’m Pro-Choice even if the WRONG decision is made.  I have no interest in women doing something they don’t believe is right.  Women aren’t generally going to make the ‘right’ abortion decision out of fear that they’ll be punished for making the ‘wrong’ decision.  A woman is going to do what she thinks is right, and that’s the way it should be.

     

    Of course, it’s going to be hard for a woman to be right about what she thinks is right if the people around her talk about the unborn as if they were sub-human.  I’m moving closer and closer to the conviction that talking about the unborn as if they were sub-human is worse than getting an abortion.

  • crowepps

    The point you seem to consistently miss is that when a woman decides not to continue a pregnancy, the equation is not ‘woman versus fetus’ but actually her weighing of whether it would be most reprodutively productive in the long run to continue parental investment in ‘this fetus’ or instead put that investment into ‘children already born’ or ‘the next fetus’.

    Cultivating more empathy for the very young doesn’t require you to have less empathy for their mothers.

    When you argue that 10-year old girls should be encouraged to risk death because Paul’s ‘empathy’ for the fetus is more important than her life, that seems to me like a pretty global lack of empathy for her.  I’m sure her mother will be really comforted by the fact that you feel really, really SAD the pregnancy killed her.

  • crowepps

    I’m moving closer and closer to the conviction that talking about the unborn as if they were sub-human is worse than getting an abortion.

    Sure, you can put that on your ‘thought crimes’ list along with ‘not wanting to be a mother’ and ‘not thinking of a blastocyst as a person’ and ‘having sex without committing to being a parent’.

     

    As, once again, you measure and judge what other people should be permitted to think and feel.

  • colleen

    I used the term ‘Pro-Choice extremist’ in reference to people who ALWAYS claim a woman has the right to make her own pregnancy decisions even if the “woman” is ten years old, or mentally disabled.

    When normal people say things like ‘a woman has the right to make her own pregnancy decisions’ they aren’t talking about pregnant 10 year olds.

  • crowepps

    How would you go about deciding whether or not the girl should get an abortion.

    Personally? If this was MY daughter? Who had been incestuously abused by an adult man I was responsible for inflicting on her through my second marriage?

    I wouldn’t even tell her she was pregnant. I would take the entire responsibility and get her an immediate abortion. She’s 10 years old and even if the chances of her surviving are 51% I’m not going to flip a coin and figure then it’s okay to risk her life for the 51% possibility of having a grandchild now when it’s more likely that she will successfully have lots of other grandchildren when she becomes an adult.

     

    My ‘calculation’ would be that a bird in the hand beats one in the bush.

  • crowepps

    I would like you to draw a distinction in your mind between me trying to talk to you about the moral value of human life and Church officials in Mexico coercing a little girl to do something exceedingly dangerous.

    Since your opinion on the ‘moral value of human life’ is identical to that of the Church officials and exactly the REASON they are coercing her to do something dangerous, it’s a little difficult to see why a distinction should be drawn.  Your opinion on the ‘moral value of human life’ is the direct CAUSE of the situation.

     

    I’m sure it would be nice for you to believe that your high-minded philosophical argument wouldn’t necessarily lead to disastrous consequences in the real world, but I’m afraid that if you insist on promoting the theory as The Truth, you have to accept the responsibility for the real world consequences when they’re put into practice.

  • paul-bradford

    Your opinion on the ‘moral value of human life’ is the direct CAUSE of the situation.

     

    crowepps,

     

    It sounds as if you’re not giving me any room between ‘on the one hand’ knowing what you’re supposed to do, and sharing that information with you and ‘on the other hand’ violating your will and your privacy and forcing you to do as you’re supposed to.

     

    I’m sharply critical of the Church when she steps over the line between ‘teaching’ and ‘controlling’.  We both want her to stop controlling; but you seem to be insisting that she stop teaching as well.

  • crowepps

    I fail to see any ‘moral difference’ between ‘we’re not going to allow the doctor to treat you’ and sharing the information that ‘God wants you to have this baby and if you murder it to try to save your life you’re going to hell.’

  • wendy-banks

    that you think this ten year old girl is more important than her four month old fetus.  Is this correct?

    Yes. Why? Because she is allready BORN. In a perfect world little girls (and little boys) would not get raped. Adult women and men would not get raped. And all babies would be conceived in planned and healthy pregnacies. This is not the case. I do not like abortion. However, sometimes it is nessary, not unlike war. What good would it do if the mother in this case dies, or the child, or both? The odds are not good for a good outcome. If the mother lives, she can heal from her molestion, rape, whatever you care to call it, and have a chance at a healthy pregnacy when her little girl body GROWS UP.

    Life is NOT perfect– I’m a realist, that’s why I am no longer a christain. You have to go with the most realistic senario. Which is a POOR PROGNOSIS. My pregnacy was also high-risk, but I was not ten, had the best care possible in a developed country, and had a high chance of a good out-come– Even then, I had to go to a specialist in high risk pregnacies to assess my daughter’s and my risk for a bad outcome. I WAS sick enough that without good healthcare I could have DIED or had my body screwed up for the rest of my life (renal failure). I had hyperemesis gravida and could cause a laundry list of problems for both mother AND child. The worst being death of one or both the mother or child. So DON’T give me the I don’t know shitck. I am a Pharm Tech, I’ve had to learn quite alot about medicine– I worked in both inpatient and outpatient pharmacy for about 15 years– And, no I was not just a clerk or casher. If I had not gotten so sick that I became disabled, I would be a Arizona Board of Pharmacy Certified Pharmacy Tech (CPhT). I was planning to go back to school to become a nurse,nursing assistant or social worker. I would love to work in many different health fields. But I feel too ill and couldn’t contiue. Plus, I am the prime caretaker for my Dad whom is in end-stage COPD. So yeah, I think I know a little bit about mediciene and medical risk.

    The biggest obilgations I owe humanity is to teach my daughter to be a decent, careing, compassionate, moral human being, to fight for the rights of women (thanks to my suffragette grandma), children, gays, and the disabled, animals, take care of my Dad, and my flock of birds (healthy, sick, and injured). And to learn, learn, learn every day. What I’ve learned the most is life is NOT black and white, only shades of gray. And morality is realitive, not absolute. Poverty,discrimination, useing people and most religions are amoral (Buddhism and Paganism are mostly good as religions go.). So, what am I? Agnostic almost Atheist sorta Pagan and a Humanist– Don’t like it? Tough. And I’m far from perfect, but then, who is? I try to be decient and law abiding– But I’m hot-headed, prone to vindictiveness, bitchyness, stubborness, grumpiness, and I have a dreadful temper. But, I’m smart, have a good sense of humour, willing, loveing, compasionate, and loyal.

    Man, verbose of me, eh? *laughs at self*

  • wendy-banks

    Personally? If this was MY daughter? Who had been incestuously abused by an adult man I was responsible for inflicting on her through my second marriage?

    Let’s not forget about beating the dog crap out of the said abuser with a baseball bat. The only question is to do that before or after I gelded him…

    If she was my kid– Well, if she (or he) was ANYBODY’S kid. *glowers*

    Hand me my Fenton Creepstick would ‘ya?

  • saltyc

    I wouldn’t even tell her she was pregnant. I would take the entire responsibility and get her an immediate abortion. She’s 10 years old

    Yes! Same thing I would do.

  • saltyc

    Paul, you keep pretending there isn’t a war going on. I’m not the one breaking the sides.

    The girl was kicked out of the house by her parents and got a judge’s override on the parental notice, which was required where we live. I helped her get the abortion she wanted. The status quo would have been for her to go into her third trimester at 15. I’m the one breaking this into sides????? WHAT???? 

    If you had any clue what respect is, maybe you wouldn’t sound like such a self-righteous, pompous idiot.

  • saltyc

    It’s the truth that the unborn are not fully human. Which makes the abortion decision much easier, so it’s an awesome thing to say. Less drama, more joy. Less worry and guilt, more life!

     

    You never convinced me that even you truly believe that the unborn are fully human, because you never talked about your work, thinking and research on the causes and prevention of spontaneous abortion. And would you save a freezer full of embryos from a burning fertility clinic before saving a sleeping child?

  • princess-rot

    When a fifteen year old gets an abortion she demonstrates the fact that she hasn’t been sufficiently supported in her efforts to respect life; but when a fifteen year girl old gets pregnant (or a fifteen year old boy gets someone pregnant) the same lack of respect is demonstrated.

    Like it or not, Paul, teenagers do have sexualities and most will eventually have sex, be it before they are legal adults or after. Our (pro-choicer’s) goal is not preventing sex per se, but preventing negative fallout from it, mostly by offering support, choice, education on contraceptives, consent, rape culture, pregnancy, adoption, abortion and everything in between. Ergo, we realise trying to prevent sex is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

     

    You actually believe no teenagers would engage in sexual activity if they have been properly schooled in ‘pro-life’ ways, and taught that they should withold sex not for themselves, because they may not be ready, but because it’s disrespectful to children who don’t exist? This may make sense to you and others like you, this talk of respect sounds reasonable on the surface, but to me it reveals a large amount of cognitive dissonance. It’s the huge gap between ideals and realities. It’s the gap between philosophizing about applying inherent value of the unborn and unconceived and how that plays out in reality: how that affects people who are already here. Your immediate reaction does give it away.

  • crowepps

    You’re proposing that an even more heinous crime be perpetrated on an even more powerless and vulnerable victim who would then suffer even more grievously.

    Six inches long, seven ounces.  “Suffer”?  Oh, please.

     my understanding, empathy and compassion get diverted from the victim

    We’d noticed before that you feel far more comfortable bestowing your understanding, empathy and compassion on hypothetical humans than on real ones.  Particularly when you assert that ‘morality’ demands that a 70 pound fourth grader attempt to create and maintain 25 pounds of placenta, amniotic fluid and fetus and then get her belly cut open in a continuation of the crime already committed against her.

     It would more accurate to point out that you don’t care a bit about the fetus.  The fetus might just as well be a block of wood for all you care.

    Weighing ‘the fetus’ against the living girl, all my caring goes to the living girl.  Weighing ‘the fetus’ and its slim chances of survival against the FUTURE fetuses which are likely to have a much better chance of survival, my ‘caring’ goes to the future fetuses.

  • paul-bradford

    My criticism, repeated many times here, is that you have a habit, indeed you’ve stated that your whole purpose here, is to tell people what they SHOULD think.

     

    crowepps,

     

    You know, it’s not as if you haven’t gotten me to think about it.  I mean, even a slow learner like me eventually comes to the conclusion that it’s neither effective nor appropriate to tell other people what to think — and, despite colleen’s rather over-the-top fear that I’m browbeating women, the folks I converse with here are more than capable of holding their own in a discussion so telling you all what to think isn’t even feasible.

     

    There’s something, though, that remains even when I’m not instructing you what to think and I want you to help me put my finger on it.  You identified a difference between philosophical value and biological value.  That’s a start.  I think I see how you determine biological value.  By that standard, we’re not all equal.  I see how people here, and in the world, favor those with superior biological value over those with inferior biological value, and it’s that observation that tempts me into the trap of telling others what they should think.

     

    Tell me, crowepps, whether you agree with me that if you were to plot a person’s “biological value” on a graph or chart over the course of her/his lifetime it would be virtually zero at conception and would rise quickly over the course of prenatal development, continue to rise after birth until the crest of adolescence, level off during reproductive years, and then — when fertility declines — start to gradually drop off and then drop precipitously as the infirmity of old age takes hold.

     

    Have I got that right?  Is that what you’re envisioning when we talk about a person’s “biological value”?  Because if that’s what you’re thinking, I’m very much with you when you warn against conflating philosophical value with biological value.  

  • crowepps

    I think I see how you determine biological value.  By that standard, we’re not all equal.

    No, we are not.  If a plane manages to make a soft landing in the jungle and the passengers have to sit without resources and wait for rescue for two weeks, some of them are more likely to die than others without the medical support that the ‘civilized’ take for granted – insulin dependent diabetics, others with chronic conditions only kept under control by medication such as severe allergies or asthma or high blood pressure, the elderly and the young are at the greatest risk, because biologically they are not as ‘strong’ or ‘fit’ as the others.  I don’t think that means that some of their lives are ‘inferior’ or that the more strong and more fit are ‘superior’.  It’s just the way biology works.

     

    A severely damaged person whose wounds are beyond medical help, someone whose cancer has reached its end stages or a person who is 101 has less ‘biological value’ than another person who is in his/her 20’s and in perfect health precisely because they have less likelihood of surviving.

     

    If it is only possible to provide medical care to one of these people, most triage nurses are going to select the person for whom medical care will actually make a difference.  This does not mean that the injured or diseased or elderly person is ‘inferior’ or that the young person is ‘superior’ but instead that when you leave the theoretical realm of the ‘value of human life’ and have to deal with actual human LIVES in difficult reality, sometimes real choices have to be made about where to direct society’s efforts.

     

    Since society’s resources are not infinite, in reality it is necessary to make practical decisions like choosing to not devote them to, just as an example, removing a cancerous breast lump from a 101 year old women, or keeping someone who has no brain waves at all on total body artificial life support for another six months.

     

    Does this mean those people don’t have ‘value’?  That they are ‘inferior’?  That society ‘cares more’ about the young person?

     

    I would argue that it does not.  Instead it is a recognition that biology is not a philosophical science, but instead reality-based.  My grandma was a terrific lady and I loved her dearly, but I absolutely agreed with her decision to not have a lumpectomy.  The cancer was still right there simmering quietly when her heart finally gave out entirely three years later at the age of almost 104.

  • colleen

    You may not believe this, but I actually DO have a drop of empathy

    You and your church would let 10 year old girls die for YOUR ‘principles’ and call it justice. Ask me if I care that her death would bother you a little. Your church would excommunicate her mother for trying to save her daughter’s life and not excommunicate the man who endangered her life by raping her.

    Right away, you Reproductive Health Advocates start suggesting abortion. Egads!! You’re proposing that an even more heinous crime be perpetrated on an even more powerless and vulnerable victim who would then suffer even more grievously. Well, THAT will certainly make things better!

    It clearly would make things much, much better for the 10 year old child (indeed it would likely save her life) and that is the point. I get it that you and your church would consider her and every other pregnant 10 year old worthy sacrifices to the clusterfuck of cognitive dissonance and corruption you and your church think of as ‘morality’ and that y’all would swell with self righteous hubris and satisfaction while doing so. And that is why I do not want people like you writing our laws, operating our hospitals or sitting on our Supreme Court much less within shouting distance of a rape victim.

    The impression you get is that I don’t care enough about the girl. That’s rubbish. It would more accurate to point out that you don’t care a bit about the fetus. The fetus might just as well be a block of wood for all you care.

    Grow up, Paul. I’m not concerned with your confused and messy emotive life, it’s your judgment I question. 10 year olds are not physically mature enough to have sex and they’re not physically mature enough to carry pregnancies to term. Expecting them to do either of these things is the worst sort of child abuse. I don’t believe that a 4 month old fetus is a ‘child’ but I know with absolute certainly that a pregnant 10 year old is and you know what, I’m not a Catholic and never will be. That’s reality. Deal with it.

  • ahunt

    I can guarantee that my baby girl would be fetus-free just as damn fast as possible, Paul.

  • colleen

    and, despite colleen’s rather over-the-top fear that I’m browbeating women, the folks I converse with here are more than capable of holding their own in a discussion so telling you all what to think isn’t even feasible.

    Paul, I assure you, that was not a ‘fear’. When I described you as manipulative and browbeating I was accurately describing your behavior, not expressing a fear. At no time did I ever mean to imply that the women who post here can’t hold their own. Only that you enjoy browbeating women.

  • colleen

    Cultivating more empathy for the very young doesn’t require you to have less empathy for their mothers.

    You know, that sounds just so reasonable until the reader remembers that the guy writing it is actually arguing that it’s MORAL to kill or disable a 10 year old pregnant rape victim by forcing her tiny body to carry a pregnancy to term.
    Perhaps your problem is that you have no capacity for empathy

  • saltyc

    You’re making a simple logical fallacy.

    The fact that some people have been considered non-people by other people doesn’t by itself show that anything is a person, or that non-people are people.

    I could tell you that the animals you eat are people too, and that you’re defining people as non-people. I could convince you by saying that there have been people who ate people whom they considered non-people and that’s what you are doing and you’re a cannibal when you eat meat.

    Still didn’t convince you did I? niether did you convince me that a fetus is anything but a potential person, and that the responsibility lies with what kind of life is one able to provide for that future person.

    I also have obligations, to my family, pets, relationships. It is my empathy and sense of responsibilty that made me have an abortion. It was out of responsibility and compassion that I had an abortion, and you’ll never be able to wrap your mind around that, will you?

  • paul-bradford

    You never convinced me that even you truly believe that the unborn are fully human, because you never talked about your work, thinking and research on the causes and prevention of spontaneous abortion.

     

    Salty,

     

    I answered you on the other thread and I got a lot of response when I talked about my hopes to lower the rate of spontaneous abortion.  A fetus lost to spontaneous abortion is as much of a loss as a fetus lost to procured abortion.

     

    You ask me questions, but you don’t stick around to get the answers.

  • paul-bradford

    it’s MORAL to kill or disable a 10 year old pregnant rape victim

     

    colleen,

     

    That ten year old girl has a high risk pregnancy and there’s a chance that either or both her and her child might perish.  That’s why some human being has to decide what’s best.  But, if the determination is that there’s a good chance they could both survive, and they DO both survive, I can imagine you having a conversation, twenty years from now, with the person who was born as a result.

     

    S/he might look you in the eye and say, “If the abortion rights advocates at RHReality Check had had their way, I’d be dead now.  I thank God every day that the people who were taking care of my mother had a respect for life — otherwise I wouldn’t be talking to you now.”  How would you respond then?

  • paul-bradford

    It is my empathy and sense of responsibilty that made me have an abortion.

     

    Salty,

     

    Empathy, a sense of responsibility, and the belief that the unborn are sub-human.  If you add empathy and a sense of responsibility to the belief that the unborn have every bit as much of a right to live as you have, you would have brought the pregnancy to term.

     

    I have no problem whatsoever believing that you have empathy and responsibility.  You didn’t choose to have an abortion because there’s anything defective about YOU, you chose to have an abortion because you believed that your child wasn’t “fully human”.

     

    That’s the thing that has me bugged.  I don’t have a problem with the women who choose to abort — I have a problem with the idea that the unborn aren’t people.  If you had a different idea you’d have demonstrated different behavior.

     

    I could tell you that the animals you eat are people too, and that you’re defining people as non-people. I could convince you by saying that there have been people who ate people whom they considered non-people and that’s what you are doing and you’re a cannibal when you eat meat.

     

    Be careful, there, Salty because I’m very much in favor of animal rights.  The same anti-life attitudes that lead us to disrespect fetuses also lead us to disrespect animals.  I don’t think that animals are “people” but I do think we’re required to show a respect for animal life and that we’re a long way from showing proper respect.

     

    I think fetuses are people because I think I’m a person and I know for 100% certain that I used to be a fetus.  So were you.  The body I have now is the same body I had then — if that body has a right to life now, it had a right to life then.

  • crowepps

    Now that the ‘morality’ shock troops have descended with their ‘going to go to hell’ handbook and applied the sentimentalist ‘don’t you want to be a mommy’ brainwashing and convinced her she has to sustain the pregnancy, there’s no chance they’ll ever have to ‘explain’ their decision even if they were wrong. They can safely feel moral and self-righteous in the comfy certainly that they won’t have to look into her eyes, which will be permanently closed. I can even imagine that they’ll go to the funeral and talk about how very, VERY sad they are, and how hard they PRAYED, and isn’t it a SHAME. Barf.

  • mechashiva

    I’ve said this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here…

     

    Actually, it isn’t necessary to think of an embryo as “inhuman” or “less human” to have an abortion and be sure of your decision. We often had self-professed pro-lifers who thought abortion was murder come to our clinic for our services. At their two-week check-ups, they might have felt like they will need to face God for their sin, but they were by-and-large still certain that they made the right decision. I always spent extra time with those kinds of patients, because their experiences broke down the assumptions people make about women who have abortions (I also wanted to make sure they weren’t being coerced).

     

    And these were not the kind of pro-life patients mentioned in “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion.” By and large, these women were very respectful of other patients and the staff… they just happened to be pro-life women who were pregnant and did not want to (or could not for whatever reason) carry to term. Perhaps some of them changed their minds and became pro-choice afterwards. Perhaps some of them regretted their decisions and became one of those protesters you see with the sign that says “I regret my abortion.” I have strong doubts about either of those. More likely, the think abortion is painful, wrong, but sometimes needed… like the majority of moderate voters in the country.

     

    I have an enormous problem with people insisting that only women who think a particular way have abortions. It is completely inaccurate.

  • crowepps

    you believed that your child wasn’t “fully human”.

    As opposed to what?  Partially human?

    we’re required to show a respect for animal life

    So you’re a vegetarian?  Or you continue to eat dead animal flesh but feel the farmer should be nice to them before he kills them for you?

  • emma

    You’re proposing that an even more heinous crime be perpetrated on an even more powerless and vulnerable victim who would then suffer even more grievously. Well, THAT will certainly make things better!

    That’s a grotesque comment. There is no possible way for a non-sentient foetus to suffer at all, let alone more than a 10-year-old girl who’s been raped. That’s a grossly hyperbolic and factually inaccurate comment that thoroughly trivialises the suffering of people who’ve been sexually abused.

  • colleen

     

     But, if the determination is that there’s a good chance they could both survive, and they DO both survive,

     

    Paul you are gravely mistaken if you believe you’re going to be able to browbeat me into conceding that your position is reasonable or moral.  10 year olds are too young for men to stick their penises in and 10 year olds are too young to carry pregnancies to term. It’s unfortunate that ‘the determination’ has already been made, that the child has been removed from her mother and delivered into the hands of men like you where she will become another sacrifice to the oxymoronic concept of catholic social justice.

    At some point in The Church’s endless crusade against anyone with a vagina and uterus even moral midgets like you are going to wake up and realise that you’ve been had. 

     

     

  • crowepps

     The body I have now is the same body I had then

    No, it’s not the same body at all.  It is a body constructed on a similar PATTERN of DNA, of course, but it has replaced all its own cells many times over.

     

    Just as the PATTERN of the DNA in that zygote was used to construct it in the first place by using your mother as a source of supply from which to build it, not perfectly, but with the genes expressing a little differently from depending on which supplies were available to it.

     

    If you have the intellectual honesty to be willing to challenge your preconceptions, you might want to do a little reading on “epigenetics” and  “differentially expressed genes” in “monozygotic twin pairs”.  Using the exact same pattern of DNA used to produce a “Paul”, with only the tiniest tweaks in the quality and abundance of supply, a different person could also be built.

     

    http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10604.long

     

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/7/11

     

    http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1799.pdf

     

    http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/44/6/2466

     

    If those are too abstruse for you, you might get some insight by reading “The Boys From Brazil” by Ira Levin.

  • paul-bradford

    If a plane manages to make a soft landing in the jungle and the passengers have to sit without resources and wait for rescue for two weeks, some of them are more likely to die than others without the medical support that the ‘civilized’ take for granted

     

    crowepps,

     

    And if some of those on the plane died for lack of medical support, the episode would prompt the ‘civilized’ to make efforts to avert a similar disaster in the future.  Why would they do this?  They would do this because they believe that the people who died MATTERED.  If it cost money to improve safety for next time they would spend the money.  Why?  Because they’re ‘civilized’.

     

    We had a disaster in the United States on September 11, 2001.  3497 people died who didn’t have to die.  Since that time we’ve spent billions to prevent a similar disaster.

     

    We also have a disaster EVERY SINGLE DAY in the United States, and every single day we lose about the same number of victims — and every death is preventable.  On September 11 we lost lives to terrorism.  Every day we lose lives to procured abortion.  The difference is that the people who died on September 11 mattered.  The people who die every day don’t matter — at least they don’t matter to a lot of people.  If they mattered we’d figure out a way to avert future disasters.  To figure out the abortion problem we’ve got to figure out a way to make the unborn matter.

  • crowepps

    To extend my analogy, which was focused ENTIRELY on trying to define ‘biological fitness’ for you, each of the women making those decisions to procure an abortion is ‘the pilot’ in charge, her life is the ‘jungle’, and she is making her decision based on her assessment of the ‘passengers’ survival’ –  that ‘this fetus at this time’ doesn’t have a good likelihood of ‘survival’ when balanced against ‘the fetus I already brought to term and need to provide for’ or ‘a fetus conceived later at a time when the snakes aren’t hatching’.

     

    I’m beginning to find it really irritating that when we are having a discussion about apple/reality (survival equation between pregnant 10 year old girl and fetus) where you have requested further elucidation of my opinion and I have provided same, just when I think you are FINALLY grasping what I’m trying to say, not agree with it, mind you, just understanding it, wham, off you go on your obsession with people having the right feeeeeeeeelings and gallop off to a different country, person and situation and talk about ‘abortion for birth control’, which is not what we were talking about at all, and is not only oranges but perhaps oranges in la la land where women have abortions because your amazing psychic powers have revealed to you that those women believe the fetus ‘doesn’t matter’.

     

    We were talking about a 10 year old girl.  I was saying that I hold her life to have greater biological VALUE than that of the fetus because she has more parental investment in her already, she is more likely to survive than the fetus biologically — socially, of course, she’s doomed to reproductive slavery so long as she lives in an area under the control of a Church that insists the appropriate response to an incestuous creep raping a child is to encourage the girl to die in childbirth.

     

    Stop wasting my time with requests that I spend time cogitating and providing more information to explain my position if you’re not willing to treat the answer with respect and don’t plan to actually RESPOND to that information unless you can refute it.  Even my patience is not infinite and my time definitely is not.

  • paul-bradford

    When I described you as manipulative and browbeating I was accurately describing your behavior

     

    You know, collleen, if you’re going to keep insisting that I’m browbeating, I’m just going to have to stop giving you an argument about the matter.  You’re telling me that you feel browbeaten after you read my posts and you know how you feel better than I do, so that should settle it.

     

    I will tell you, though, that I’m very sorry to hear it because it’s not my intention to browbeat you or anyone.  In fact, browbeating would only serve to undermine my attempts to enlist other people’s aid in upholding the rights of the very young.  As you know from previous posts, I’ve identified four policy goals that I think would be feasible, appropriate and effective in lowering the abortion rate and in protecting the unborn:

     

    * Improve access to contraception and accurate reproductive information to all women (and men).

    * Guarantee access to excellent prenatal care for all pregnant mothers.

    * Provide more effective help to poor and single mothers.

    * Insist on paternal support for all children who do not live with their fathers.

     

    I am absolutely convinced that these policies will save unborn lives and, because I care about the well-being of the unborn, I enthusiastically support these policies and urge others to do so.  I have, in the past, urged you to support these policies but you have neither agreed to do so nor have you offered any arguments against them.

     

    Added to these four policies is the overall policy of getting more people to care more about the very young.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers or the best ones.  I do think, however, that if more people cared about the unborn we would be able to develop effective policies that I haven’t thought of yet. 

  • paul-bradford

    I’m a realist, that’s why I am no longer a christain.

     

    Wendy,

     

    I enjoy getting into conversations with non Christians for the same reason my niece likes to get into conversations with native French speakers.  Like my niece, I’m happy to try to express myself in another language.  You will notice that I virtually never quote the Bible, or reference Vatican documents, or talk about Jesus or God or the afterlife or religion.  The social justice issues I bring up here can be discussed productively with people of any religion or no religion.

     

     

    I WAS sick enough that without good healthcare I could have DIED

     

    You probably know this already, Wendy, but I like to bring it up whenever I can. 560,000 women die every year, worldwide, due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth.  An additional three million suffer significant injury.  Most of these injuries and deaths occur in the Third World and a high percentage would have been prevented if “good healthcare” were available.  The problem is that obstetric care is expensive and Third World countries are notoriously poor about investing in women’s health.  Keep an eye on the money that gets sent to poor countries and use your influence to try and get a fair share of it to the women who most need it.

     

    The biggest obilgations I owe humanity is to teach my daughter to be a decent, careing, compassionate, moral human being, to fight for the rights of women (thanks to my suffragette grandma), children, gays, and the disabled, animals, take care of my Dad, and my flock of birds (healthy, sick, and injured). And to learn, learn, learn every day. What I’ve learned the most is life is NOT black and white, only shades of gray. And morality is realitive, not absolute.

     

    Tell me what you think about my idea morality.  I don’t think it’s about following a list of do’s and don’ts so I don’t trouble myself too much about whether a certain rule is black-and-white or relative.  Morality, to me, is about “respecting and fighting for the rights of others” which you just mentioned.  I believe there is such a thing as justice and we learn to see what justice is when we start thinking that other people’s lives matter as much as our own do.  Rules can be good in the sense of being a ‘means to an end’ but they can never express the essence of morality.

  • paul-bradford

    Now that the ‘morality’ shock troops have descended with their ‘going to go to hell’ handbook and applied the sentimentalist ‘don’t you want to be a mommy’ brainwashing and convinced her she has to sustain the pregnancy, there’s no chance they’ll ever have to ‘explain’ their decision even if they were wrong.

     

    crowepps,

     

    First of all, we could spend a whole lot of time discussing what’s wrong with this case.  We could talk about Mexican law, the behavior of the mother, the behavior of government officials, the behavior of Church officials, the behavior of abortion rights’ advocates and find ourselves no closer to an understanding of what needs to be done to respect the girl and her unborn child.

     

    The people taking care of the girl might insist that she bring the pregnancy to term and, in doing so, the girl might die.  It will be obvious to the world, at that point, that they made the wrong decision.  What would happen, in your mind, if the people taking care of the girl arranged for her to get an abortion?  In that case, no one would ever know whether the “right” decision had been made.  One could speculate that the girl could have survived pregnancy and childbirth and could have delivered a live birth.  In that scenario, the death of the very young child could have been prevented — or one could speculate that the ten year old would have perished in the attempt.  If she gets an abortion no one will ever know whether or not the decision is right or wrong.

     

    If the authorities hurried the girl to your home, and put her under your care, I’m sure you’d arrange for an abortion as soon as possible. But in that case, ‘there’s no chance you’ll ever have to ‘explain’ your decision even if you are wrong’.  Do you see my point?

  • paul-bradford

    10 year olds are too young for men to stick their penises in

     

    colleen,

     

    I brought this up in another post but I’ll repeat it here.  The idea of abortion didn’t come from the girl or the people caring for her.  It was proposed by abortion rights’ advocates in Mexico.  If it had never been considered, we would all be able to focus our empathy and concern on the girl who was traumatized, abused, violated, victimized, raped and mistreated by her stepfather.  She’s in trouble now because of his atrocious behavior.

     

    If no one had ever thought to mention abortion we would all be hoping for the girl to remain well through the pregnancy and delivery and we would all be hoping that she would have a chance to recover and get her life back on track after the ordeal.  Once abortion was mentioned, people who care about the well being of both the born and the unborn had to divert their love and sympathy from the girl and toward her fetus.

     

    You find it hard to believe that a person could truly care about the girl without wanting to destroy her child.  The two are identical in your mind.  Opposed to the abortion?  You must hate the girl!

     

    You’ve accused me of being a moral midget who’s on a crusade against anyone with a vagina and a uterus.  I’m going to accuse you now of failing to consider the possibility that there’s some OTHER reason I’m hoping there’s some way this fetus can survive to birth.

     

    you are going to wake up and realise that you’ve been had.

     

    You’re concern that I might have been ‘had’ makes me wonder about something.  I happen to agree with my Church that we all have a duty to uphold the rights of the unborn.  Is it your opinion that I’ve neglected my responsibility to think for myself and that I’ve allowed the Vatican to do my thinking for me?  I wonder, furthermore, whether you imagine that I have some fear of retribution in this world or the next if I should take the position that abortion is justifiable.

     

    I advocate for the unborn because I believe their lives matter as much as mine does.  What’s more, I’m hoping that you’ll come around to this belief — but I can’t imagine that you need me to do your thinking for you any more than I need to have the pope do my thinking for me.

  • paul-bradford

    We often had self-professed pro-lifers who thought abortion was murder come to our clinic for our services. At their two-week check-ups, they might have felt like they will need to face God for their sin, but they were by-and-large still certain that they made the right decision.

     

    MechaShiva,

     

    Do I understand you properly?  You cut and pasted your own post?  You work at a clinic that provides abortions?

     

    I was thinking about this yesterday and I wonder what your opinion is.  Suppose these ‘self-professed pro-lifers’ had been offered a four-year full scholarship to the college or university of their choice, a two week all expenses paid vacation in Cancun and a day of beauty on their birthday every year for the rest of their lives if they brought their pregnancies to term.  Is it possible, in your mind, that some of them would have decided to give birth.

     

    From my perspective, I think it’s nice when women are certain they made the ‘right decision’ — but it’s more important to me that the unborn survive their pregnancies.  Do you agree with me that people’s decisions can be influenced by other people’s behavior?

  • colleen

    You know, collleen, if you’re going to keep insisting that I’m browbeating, I’m just going to have to stop giving you an argument about the matter

    what you’ve produced as an “argument”. You’ve been repeating the same indefensible set of beliefs and expecting us to agree that really it is best to force a pregnant 10 year old rape victim to carry to term if there is a slight chance she might survive. I understand and do not share or admire in any way your beliefs. You are wrong.

    In fact, browbeating would only serve to undermine my attempts to enlist other people’s aid in upholding the rights of the very young.

    So would being overtly manipulative, presumably.
    But there’s nothing like utilizing both of these techniques to argue stridently that 10 year old rape victims are obligated to continue pregnancies that could kill or disable them to remove any doubt about just how irrational and extreme your concern for ‘the very young’ actually is. You refuse to accept the reality that I understand what you’re saying and reject your beliefs.

    I have, in the past, urged you to support these policies but you have neither agreed to do so nor have you offered any arguments against them.

    Saying you’ve “urged me to support” things like improved access to contraception is a little like saying you’ve “urged” the ocean to be salt water. I’ve been posting here for quite awhile and would be suprised if anyone who reads what I’ve written believes I don’t support those policies. I agree to support those policies whenever I send money or advocate for Planned Parenthood. You agree to work against those policies whenever you send money to or defend the Catholic church.

  • paul-bradford

    If those are too abstruse for you, you might get some insight by reading “The Boys From Brazil” by Ira Levin.

     

    crowepps,

     

    You needn’t have worried.  They weren’t “too abstruse for me”.  I don’t read science journals nearly as much as you do and probably not nearly as much as I should but I was able to follow pretty well. You’re going to have to provide more inducement than you did in your post to get me to add The Boys From Brazil to my reading list. 

     

    I can’t imagine you intended this, but that expression ‘too abstruse for you’ could have been taken as an insult to my intelligence.

     

    It would have been impossible to know, at the moment of my conception, what my body was going to turn out like or even what its precise DNA code was going to be.  I find that thought tremendously satisfying.  What I am is simply one example out of a limitless supply of ‘what I could have beens’.  The only thing stable is that I would have been ME.

     

    I’d be a ‘different person’ if I married a different woman, or went to a different college, or if I’d suffered certain disasters, or if I’d been spared some of the disasters I did suffer, or if I won the lottery, or if my relatives perished or perished earlier than they did.  I’m more fluid than static.  For some reason, that fact just tickles me!  I say all of that, but I also say that if I’d been a different person it still would have been ME that was that different person — and every single one of this infinity of possibilities yields a ME that has a right to life.

  • paul-bradford

    There is no possible way for a non-sentient foetus to suffer at all

     

    Emma,

     

    There’s no possible way for a dead person to suffer at all, but if I were to suggest that a murder victim had “suffered death” you’d understand what I was talking about.

     

    I say that losing your life matters even though nobody can say what it “feels” like to be dead.  I got into a heap of trouble a few months ago when I reacted so strongly to a comment Heather made about the life she might have had if she’d been aborted.  I said then (much too strongly) that it’s dangerous to talk about the options people have “after they die”.  I operate on the principle that it’s better to be alive than dead even though I have no basis for comparison.

  • paul-bradford

    I understand and do not share or admire in any way your beliefs. You are wrong.

     

    colleen,

     

    There’s only one belief we’re discussing: my belief that the life of a fetus matters as much as the life of her/his mother.  You understand my belief.  I understand that you believe that fetal life doesn’t matter as much as the lives of born people.  All the other beliefs and opinions where we disagree follow directly and logically from that single disagreement.

     

    Help me out, here, though.  I could truthfully say to you, “I understand and do not share or admire in any way your beliefs.  You are wrong.” but that’s the kind of comment that I’d figure would likely get me the reputation of being a browbeater.

     

    Despite your protestations, we do agree on one thing: contraception will lower the rate of abortion.  Is it a good thing that fewer unborn people will die?

  • mechashiva

    Yes, I quoted myself. I used to work at a clinic that did nothing but provide abortions. Yes, I did have ethical issues with that, but the demand was so high (we saw patients from all over the state, country, and world) that there was a need for an abortion-only clinic in addition to the ones that provide preventative care. We performed around 100 abortions each week, and around 200 consults (not everyone who comes in for a consult decides to come back). I worked in all areas of the clinic, but mostly I did consults and assisted during surgery. I have directly participated in roughly 10,000 abortions.

     

    As for your question about my pro-life patients. The ones I spoke with all had children, and their kids were their primary reason for aborting. The younger ones were single mothers who were having a difficult time with the baby/babies they already had from their teenage years. They might have been influenced by the full-scholarship offer, but the other things would be insultingly inconsequential. All of your offers would be insultingly inconsequential to the older pro-life patients, who had finished their education long ago and were settled into careers and marriages. Additionally, some of the pro-life patients we saw were aborting for more heartwrenching situations, like rape or a fetal condition incompatible with life (or incompatible with their financial abilities to raise a special-needs child, who would be unlikely to get adopted… and the idea of adopting for a woman who already has kids is often repulsive).

     

    Women are not so easily bribed into choosing something that they think is not right, Paul. Other people’s behaviors certainly do influence their decision-making… but some people’s behaviors are more influential than others.

  • colleen

    If it had never been considered, we would all be able to focus our empathy and concern on the girl who was traumatized, abused, violated, victimized, raped and mistreated by her stepfather. She’s in trouble now because of his atrocious behavior.

    She’s in trouble because a man used her as a masturbatory device and because men like you want to use her as an incubator. And, just as an aside, I would once again I’ll let some of

    You find it hard to believe that a person could truly care about the girl without wanting to destroy her child. The two are identical in your mind. Opposed to the abortion? You must hate the girl!

    What I believe is that what you mean by ‘care’ is shallow and meaningless.

    You’re concern that I might have been ‘had’

    I am not concerned that you have been had.

    Is it your opinion that I’ve neglected my responsibility to think for myself and that I’ve allowed the Vatican to do my thinking for me?

    I believe you lack spiritual discernment. I believe that you use denial and rationalization to avoid thinking about the consequences of the beliefs you hold which directly contradict your stated values. I believe that you and your church require far of women (and, apparently, little girls) than you ever dreamed of asking of yourselves.

    I wonder, furthermore, whether you imagine that I have some fear of retribution in this world or the next if I should take the position that abortion is justifiable.

    I’m not interested in considering your beliefs about divine retribution.

    What’s more, I’m hoping that you’ll come around to this belief

    This will never happen

  • wendy-banks

    Sorry I wasn’t able to respond tp this earler. My modem went pthbbt, and I am awaiting a new one.

    I was NOT refering to YOU Paul. And morals have been around FAR longer than the christian religion. And I find your morality amoral because it puts the not leaving and breathing zygote, embryo, fetus ahead of the living breathing human. Don’t like it? Oh, well…. As I have already told you I really am not interested in talking to you.

  • colleen

    There’s only one belief we’re discussing: my belief that the life of a fetus matters as much as the life of her/his mother

    What we’re discussing is the fact that you’re willing to kill or maim a little girl in order to enforce that belief. In which case your claim of valuing of the life and person of the ‘mother’ (or 10 year old in this instance) is useless and dishonest. Even a 10 year old would understand that.

    Is it a good thing that fewer unborn people will die?

    It’s a good thing that fewer women would experience unwanted pregnancies. In the case of this little girl are you suggesting we invent a contraceptive alternative for pre-teen girls? Just in case?

  • julie-watkins

    I don’t know the statistics. If someone has quoted risk factors and I missed them, I’m sorry. So I’m guessing here … but I think the points still stand.

    .

    There’s no test or crystal ball to predict the outcome at the time (probably past) where an abortion can occur with small risk (a few percent). By the time a pregnancy can, with 80% accuracy, be predicted to be doomed, having an abortion at that time is probably more than 50% risk that the late abortion procedure will take months/years for recovery, or maybe 20% risk of permanant damage or 5% risk of death. (All guesses, but I think the relative ratio of high risk for low possibility of good outcome is a reasonable guess.)

    .

    At what point, Paul, if I was a responsible mother of a pregnant child too young to choose for herself, at what percentage of risk should the risk of injury/permanant damage/death should that mother choose death of her “grandchild” to protect her pregnant child?

    Paul if you’re asking a mother to risk 50% change of serious injury (I think it’s probably higher) for a 10% chance of a living grandchild (I think it’s probably lower) then I think any mother who willingly takes that risk is a bad mother. And I think you’d be a bad man for asking. I think any hospital or government who takes or legally insists on that risk is a bad hospital/bad government.

  • crowepps

    I certainly didn’t mean to knock your intelligence, believe me, half the time I have no clue what they’re talking about myself. The Boys From Brazil is about an attempt to reproduce Hilter by creating a dozen clones of his DNA, and the massive fail that results when they all become unique individuals, not only different from old Adolph but different from each other.

     

    I’m well aware that you spend endless time contemplating how ‘special’ you are and congratulating the universe for creating you.

  • crowepps

    Do you agree with me that people’s decisions can be influenced by other people’s behavior?

    You mean like the State authorities not informing the girl or her mother that as an incest victim she was legally entitled to an abortion?  Or showing a little girl an ultasound and encouraging her to name ‘her baby’?  Or the Church telling her she would go to hell if she aborted?

     

    Oh, absolultely people’s decisions can be influenced, especially by ideologues who don’t mind encouraging other people to sacrifice themselves in the service of their ideology.

  • saltyc

    I don’t stick around because I don’t think much of you. You say that my abortion was a mistake because I failed to recognize the humanity of my potential child. According to you I’d be better off without the career path my life took, with a miserable, neglected child and living in poverty, instead of the brilliant career and joyful child I do have because I was able to responsibly time my major life changes. It was out of tremendous respect and love for my future child that I did abort. Somehow, Paul, your god seems to have blessed me though in your mind I made bad decisions. How about that. Maybe it wasn’t the wrong decision after all.

    So what you were once a fetus, we were all once jawless fish too, even your church recognizes evolution. Stepping into developmental biology would be skating on thin ice for you.

  • saltyc

    I’m well aware that you spend endless time contemplating how ‘special’ you are and congratulating the universe for creating you.

     

    Oh goodness! I never expect to get a good laugh when I come here!

  • julie-watkins

    The way Paul emphasizes about Education, Education, it’s a variation on “be sure you don’t get pregnant”. Which conviently for his denial-filled worldview that can therefore avoid that when an unwanted pregnancy happens, women & the poor are more burdened than men and families with more resources. And that’s systemic sex and class discrimination — not justice. (His usual reply would be that society is falling down in it’s duty to support the poor, as if sexist/classist expectations isn’t what does the most to perpetuate the inequities.) 

    And, meanwhile, all the sexist and classist TRAP laws, clinic harrassment, anti-doctor violence  and anti-choice rhetoric has the effict of increasing poverty and supplying the oligarchy with cheap, desperate labor – with the added perk for the “pro-life” people can smile and feel smug and self-righteous about their victories.

    He once replied something about how abortion is Good for the patriarchy, so don’t say he’s advocating for the patriarchy and not advocating for the vulnerable. I have to Google and find that. I almost LOL.

  • saltyc

    Yeah,  if all women agree with him that they should produce babies whenever, and more babies is always better, his side isn’t gonna stop failing the young, the poor and the lonely. Just getting here (life) is more important than your life once you got here. His side’s moral obligations are far more “complicated.” We all know which side you are on, Paul, you announce it each time you post. Patriarchy is not opposed to killing feti, but it always benefits from more control.

  • paul-bradford

    What we’re discussing is the fact that you’re willing to kill or maim a little girl in order to enforce that belief. In which case your claim of valuing of the life and person of the ‘mother’ (or 10 year old in this instance) is useless and dishonest.

     

    colleen,

     

    Your beliefs are entirely consistent to your being a decent, compassionate, thoughtful person who has accepted the premise that the life of a four month old fetus is more expendable than the life of a ten year old girl.  You refuse to see this, but my beliefs are entirely consistent to my being a decent, compassionate, thoughtful person who has accepted the premise that the life of a four month old fetus is of equal value to the life of a ten year old girl.

     

    You are judging my beliefs by your premise and when you do that I come off as worse than contemptible.  Please take a moment to consider the fact that were I to judge your beliefs by my premise you would appear utterly cold blooded.

     

    You’re angry and upset with me.  You actually think that I’m devoid of care for women in difficult situations — you’ve already come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is devoid of care for women in any situation.  Please try to imagine how the most decent, most compassionate, most thoughtful person in the entire world would view this situation if s/he believed both lives were of equal value.

     

    It would be tragic and horrifying for this ten year old girl to die attempting to bring this pregnancy to term.  It would be bad enough if she should suffer significant physical damage.  These are not only possibilities, they are likelihoods.  I know that as well as you do.  The reason she is in a position where she might be killed or maimed is because she was abused by her stepfather.  He’s the bad guy.  I really don’t deserve to have you turn me into a bad guy.

     

    I believe, to the depths of my soul, that it would be tragic and horrifying for the fetus to die in an abortion.  The stepfather has not only put his stepdaughter into a dangerous and difficult position, he’s placed his child in a dangerous and difficult position.  The stepfather has done a terrible, contemptible thing — and you’ve transferred your outrage from him to those of us who value unborn life.

     

    I believe that if there is a reasonable possibility that both mother and baby could survive childbirth, a compassionate person would attempt to save both lives.  You don’t believe that the fetus’ life is worth saving, but you don’t consider that I DO believe it’s worth saving.  That’s how you can end up calling my claim to value both lives “useless and dishonest”.  You don’t claim to value both lives, you don’t try to value both lives, you don’t even pause and consider what it would be like to value both lives.

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    What I believe is that what you mean by ‘care’ is shallow and meaningless.

     

    colleen,

     

    You believe that the problem with me, and the problem with the men in the Catholic Church, and the problem with Pro-Lifers everywhere is that we haven’t been able to develop an authentic and honest and deep and heartfelt care for the lives of women.  If only we could appreciate how dangerous and difficult the situation of unwanted pregnancy is for a woman (or girl), and if we could actually pull ourselves out of our selfish and myopic world view we would agree with you that the gains realized by terminating an unwanted pregnancy justify the ending of fetal life.

     

    I just don’t care.  I’m coldhearted and selfish.  Please explain to me what a coldhearted and selfish person actually GAINS by causing distress to women.

     

    This is the truth.  You can believe it or not.  I’m convinced that the prospect of peace on our planet depends upon people respecting all human life — including the lives of the unborn.  Anyone who respects unborn life will object to the mindset that it’s acceptable for a woman to get herself out of trouble by ending her pregnancy.  I strive to respect all life everywhere because I hope for lasting and universal peace.

     

    Do you long for and dream about world peace?  If you do, have you come to the conclusion that we can’t have peace until we manifest a more benevolent attitude toward each other — or, do you think that peace can coexist with an attitude of people solving their problems by pushing other people aside?

     

    I don’t suppose that someone whose concept of care is shallow and meaningless can do much to promote peace, so please show me how deep and meaningful care should be demonstrated.

  • paul-bradford

    Paul if you’re asking a mother to risk 50% change of serious injury (I think it’s probably higher) for a 10% chance of a living grandchild (I think it’s probably lower) then I think any mother who willingly takes that risk is a bad mother.

     

    Julie,

     

    We agree.  It would be stupid to accept a 50% risk to the mother in order to realize a 10% possibility of a live birth.

     

    My claim is that the person charged with responsibility for the life of the 10 year old is also responsible for the life of the fetus.  The goal, if it can be realized, is for both lives to be saved.  An arrangement where one or both lives are lost is not acceptable if both lives can be saved.

     

    I’ve asked this before.  If both lives are saved in this instance, what would you say to the baby when s/he is grown up?  Would you admit that you were willing to toss her/his life away?

     

    Keep in mind, the consideration of abortion wasn’t raised by the girl or by the people caring for her.  It came up when abortion rights’ advocates learned of the case.

  • colleen

    Paul, once again, there is no way I am going to validate you or your belief that it’s moral or or ‘caring’ or even reasonable to force a little 10 year old girl to risk her life and health trying to carry a pregnancy to term.

    You and your church are wrong about this. I think you and your church are wrong about most things involving human sexuality and reproduction and not just a little wrong, a whole lot wrong. If you and your church get your way you would kill any number of pregnant 10 year olds for your beliefs. That’s one of the reasons that I rejected your beliefs and church a long, long time ago.

    The reason she is in a position where she might be killed or maimed is because she was abused by her stepfather.

    Good lord, Paul, man up, and take some responsibility for the inevitable consequences of your beliefs. The pregnancy will kill or maim her, if she had an abortion the chances of her living and and without injury are approximately 95%. Denying her this necessary medical intervention is inexcusable; it is child abuse.

    The stepfather has done a terrible, contemptible thing — and you’ve transferred your outrage from him to those of us who value unborn life.

    No, my outrage is due to the fact that even a 10 year old pregnant incest victim cannot obtain the surgery necessary to preserve her life and health because your corrupt, sexually confused and degenerate clergy and the government of Mexico require another human sacrifice. I understand that the ‘pro-life’ movement requires human sacrifice but to use a child in this way and then present it as ‘moral’ or ‘decent’ or ‘wise’ is unforgivable. It is child abuse, nothing more.

    Any personal annoyance I feel is due to the fact that you keep insisting on trying to convince me that trying to kill or maim a child is decent and compassionate and ‘caring’. That’s insulting. And no, I do not begin to value a 4 month old fetus as much as an actual born person, much less a child. Try talking this over with the women in your ‘set’.

  • colleen

    You believe that the problem with me blah, blah, blah

    What I believe is I’m not going to read any more posts from you that start out with you patronizing me by telling me what I think and/or believe. I’ve been quite clear about what I think and believe including the observation that you have all the insight and authenticity of a retarded gerbil.

  • emma

    A murder victim would suffer if they were aware that they were being/about to be murdered, if the murder were painful, and so on and so forth. Arguing that a foetus without cortical function can suffer is like arguing that my chair can suffer.

     

    Julie asked a question above about what percentage of likelihood that the girl would die you’d find unacceptable to the point of considering abortion to save her life to be morally acceptable, and you didn’t answer. Why? Please don’t obfuscate.

     

    Would you be prepared to look the ten-year-old girl in the eye and tell her that you’d prefer for her to die than have an abortion (to borrow your annoying style of questioning)?

  • julie-watkins

    This isn’t possible:

    The goal, if it can be realized, is for both lives to be saved.

    Because there’s no way currently to predict which 10yo body might get lucky and survive the strain. The doctors who are advising “wait and see” are unethical, because the longer they wait the more damage is likely to occur.

    If both lives are saved in this instance, what would you say to the baby when s/he is grown up?  Would you admit that you were willing to toss her/his life away?

    I would say: “The cost to give you life was almost too high. You’re mother’s doctors took an unethical decision to risk tossing your mother’s life and health away on the 5% (or less, this is a generous guess) risk that there would be a miracle and we have this good outcome. Would you make that choice for your daughter?”

    the consideration of abortion wasn’t raised by the girl or by the people caring for her.

    I think it likely that substantive examination of the true risks involved were deliberately overlooked because of disvaluing of women means “hoping for a miracle” is considered rational.

    Because you agree,

    We agree.  It would be stupid to accept a 50% risk to the mother in order to realize a 10% possibility of a live birth.

    why would you characterize recommending an abortion for a 10yo child to be

    toss[ing the fetus’] life away

    It isn’t “tossing away” if it’s to protect the pregnant child’s life and health. So, no, I would not “admit that you were willing to toss her/his life away” when I was hoping the doctors would realize the risk to his/her mother and would advise an abortion as soon as possible.

     

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    .