10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for abortion

[Jazzy]

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

www.theguardian.com

---

Can anyone tell me one single positive result from forcing a raped child to have a child?

 

[kiwimac]

Really, from my point of view, this is very simple: No 10-year-old child should be expected to carry a pregnancy to It's end. Especially a pregnancy which has been started by an act of violence: the child's body is not ready for the strain, it is a very bad idea psychologically for the child and on top of all that it seems that people are willing to put the wronged one last. It's as if the zygote is somehow more important than the 10 year old who has been raped.

 

[Lamb]

Here is a wiki list of youngest birth mothers. As you can see, not every child is going to die from giving birth to a child. Yes, it's awful that something this evil happens to some children and they have to live with that, but to kill THEIR own child??? I know that if I was 10 years old and someone killed my baby I'd be devastated for the rest of my life. I wouldn't associate the child with the action of rape at that age which is what adults do.

List of youngest birth mothers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bluezone777]

Let's see: a child doesn't lose their life for the crimes(sins) of the father. That's one positive I can list.

Then there is that thing about the word "forced" Lots of things are "forced" on people. We have another word for that which is obligation. The quickest way to make short work of your character is to shirk your obligations. Whether you wanted the obligation or not changes nothing. The moment you start shirking obligations regardless of what they are or whether you wanted them or not, you start a pattern of not following through with anything. I mean why bother when you are convinced the moment you no longer want to shoulder an obligation then you just ditch it.

It doesn't mean you have to or an shoulder every obligation you are given or take on alone. Some are by their nature too heavy to bear alone so that means you seek out those who will and are able to help shoulder your burden with you. That's the place where relationships can be built. The kind that withstand all the troubles of this life and the ones that may never have come if that troubling situation had never come. There is also the idea that God permitted a child to come out of this rape as a way of taking what was meant for evil and turn it for good if you let it be. No good is going to come to anyone by taking that child's life so why do it? Why not take a chance and let some good come out of something awful rather ensuring that nothing good comes from it?

 

[Lamb]

Let's see: a child doesn't lose their life for the crimes(sins) of the father. That's one positive I can list.

Then there is that thing about the word "forced" Lots of things are "forced" on people. We have another word for that which is obligation. The quickest way to make short work of your character is to shirk your obligations. Whether you wanted the obligation or not changes nothing. The moment you start shirking obligations regardless of what they are or whether you wanted them or not, you start a pattern of not following through with anything. I mean why bother when you are convinced the moment you no longer want to shoulder an obligation then you just ditch it.

It doesn't mean you have to or an shoulder every obligation you are given or take on alone. Some are by their nature too heavy to bear alone so that means you seek out those who will and are able to help shoulder your burden with you. That's the place where relationships can be built. The kind that withstand all the troubles of this life and the ones that may never have come if that troubling situation had never come. There is also the idea that God permitted a child to come out of this rape as a way of taking what was meant for evil and turn it for good if you let it be. No good is going to come to anyone by taking that child's life so why do it? Why not take a chance and let some good come out of something awful rather ensuring that nothing good comes from it?

Indeed. Children are a blessing!

 

[tango]

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

www.theguardian.com

---

Can anyone tell me one single positive result from forcing a raped child to have a child?

This is a situation that makes everything messy.

As one who naturally dislikes the thought of abortion it's hard to see much benefit in forcing a rape victim, particularly a 10-year-old rape victim, to carry the resulting pregnancy to term.

That said there is at least some validity in the argument that the unborn did nothing wrong, although in a case like this I'd struggle to tell a child she shouldn't abort her unwanted pregnancy. It's not even as if she consented in any way to the process - I've said plenty of times in other threads that if you consent to the baby-making act you don't get to argue you didn't consent to the chance of a baby being made - but when you didn't consent to the sex in the first place there's no way anyone can claim you consented to the chance of a pregnancy.

Even being broadly opposed to abortion I struggle to see reasons why this child should be prohibited from seeking one. I think there needs to be a balance between "no, not at all, never" and "any time, any reason". I fear the situation in some areas is too close to the latter and the evolving situation risks going too close to the former.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Which is more heinous, rape or destroying an innocent life?

I get that the 10-year-old girl was traumatized and we would like for her to not be further traumatized, but carrying the baby to term seems a lot less traumatic to the girl than having the baby euthanized to spare her following though on the pregnancy.

Depending on the physical size of this girl, maybe the birth process could kill her. Then we have a different question.

Can carrying the baby be any worse than the act of the rape? I know, it sounds cold, but can anything be colder than death?

And it is all easy for me to say because I am a man and not a little girl who was raped. She will need counseling by godly people (not secular psychologists). Maybe there is a support group, or another little girl who went through it who could help her.

 

[tango]

Which is more heinous, rape or destroying an innocent life?

I get that the 10-year-old girl was traumatized and we would like for her to not be further traumatized, but carrying the baby to term seems a lot less traumatic to the girl than having the baby euthanized to spare her following though on the pregnancy.

Depending on the physical size of this girl, maybe the birth process could kill her. Then we have a different question.

Can carrying the baby be any worse than the act of the rape? I know, it sounds cold, but can anything be colder than death?

And it is all easy for me to say because I am a man and not a little girl who was raped. She will need counseling by godly people (not secular psychologists). Maybe there is a support group, or another little girl who went through it who could help her.

All good questions, which is why I'd say in a case like this there's little point me having an opinion because I don't know all the facts. From here it seems none of the options are particularly desirable.

Where adults consent to sex it's reasonable to assume they consent to the possible consequences even if they are hoping not to actually face them. It's reasonable to expect adults to know that, should a fumbled encounter between total strangers result in pregnancy, the man may not even know about it and the woman may not know who the man was but still be stuck with the results.

Where force is used it changes the dynamic totally. From a Christian moral standpoint there's a case to be made that killing the unborn does nothing to right the wrong but the woman who was violated may or may not accept our moral standpoint.

 

[Josiah]

Can anyone tell me one single positive result from forcing a raped child to have a child?

HORRIBLE.... INCOMPREHENSIBLE... to kill an innocent, defenseless baby because some evil person raped her mother.


.

 

[Josiah]

Why I'm Pro-Life.
There are many reasons, but I'll keep it to just 4 points. They follow:



SCIENCE.

There is MUCH talk these days about "follow the science.’ “I just say what science does,” they insist. Well, as once was said, "To claim that a fetus is a human IF the mother wants it but not if the mother doesn't isn't science." I agree. IF that "whatever" is there the day before birth is NOT a human being, a homo sapiens, then what is "it?" A cockroach? A butterfly? What does science say the species is? I’m not a biologist (my doctorate is not in that field) but when I see the ultrasound of a cute little baby sucking her thumb, it just seems to me there's a baby there. And when the mother has a baby shower, a gender reveal party, when she shares pictures of the ultrasound, it seems to me SHE thinks so, too. To ME, defining species by whether such is "wanted" or not isn’t science at all. To me, to agree that that one I’m looking at in the ultrasound sucking her thumb is not a Homo Sapiens, not .human but rather is a __________ well, they should show the science that proves that if they insist that’s what science says.



NOT PROPERTY.

It seems to me have this philosophy, this morality, deep in the American soul that humans can be property. We saw this in full bloom 150 plus years ago as many claimed that yes the African is a human (impossible to claim otherwise) BUT in some cases, he or she is just PROPERTY. There's an owner and owners can do with their PROPERTY as they please, even "terminate" him or her. I hope even non-Christians agree this is immoral. And we (as a society and nation) dealt with that 150 years ago (although it took a literal war) and declared, loud and clear, NO human is property, NO ONE owns another human being. But here we are again.... with endless shouts of “MINE.” Until it's proven to me that an unborn girl is just a lifeless THING (like a coffee mug) or a living non-human (perhaps a bunny rabbit), then we have a human (just as that ultrasound shows)... and therefore she's not property! And there is no owner! Now, acknowledging this, some will reply, "Yes, she's human and not property - but she's a DEVELOPING human and it's moral to "terminate" a human who is still developing." Ah. But a 12 year-old girl is still developing too so the morality they are defending applies just as much to a 12-year-old as to a 12-week-old. It's obviously immoral; no spin changes that.



TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT.

Proponents of abortions dwell on a sad, tragic reality that we MUST not evade: There can be horrible, tragic situations! We live in a fallen, sinful, broken world where terrible things happen. Even to completely innocent people. There are horrible and very REAL stories, and we must not gloss over these! There’s one point pro-abortion people often make that I’m glad about – they point out that we have TWO people deeply involved in this situation – there’s the mother, too! And sometimes it’s not the beautiful situation we all want to assume is the case. While abortions because of rape or incest together account for less than 1% of all abortions, they are realities. And there are other realities, too! But some seem to hold that the proper response is to kill the most innocent party. I'd argue that two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes a bigger wrong. Instead of punishing the child, we need to help the mother. We need to "be there" for BOTH mother and child, for ALL threatened and abused. Those tragic stories suggest help for the mother, not killing the child.



HUMAN RIGHTS.

Much talk is made of "rights" these days, especially in the US. There is a basic American view that there are inalienable rights granted by the Creator. We'd agree on some: Freedom of speech, for example. But there is one “right” above all the rest, one right on which all other others completely, totally depend: The right to life, the right to exist, the right to be. If my life is taken away, what difference does it make if I have freedom of speech? Again, I know the response: “But some humans are just property, and property has no rights.” But we know from history that any can reduce others to just property: Hitler and the Jews, A lot of Americans and African slaves, many have been victims of this "human but property" morality. If we are to embrace rights at all – even just the concept of rights – then there obviously is one that must be cherished and protected above all others.





.

 

[kiwimac]

Why I'm Pro-Life.
There are many reasons, but I'll keep it to just 4 points. They follow:



SCIENCE.

There is MUCH talk these days about "follow the science.’ “I just say what science does,” they insist. Well, as once was said, "To claim that a fetus is a human IF the mother wants it but not if the mother doesn't isn't science." I agree. IF that "whatever" is there the day before birth is NOT a human being, a homo sapiens, then what is "it?" A cockroach? A butterfly? What does science say the species is? I’m not a biologist (my doctorate is not in that field) but when I see the ultrasound of a cute little baby sucking her thumb, it just seems to me there's a baby there. And when the mother has a baby shower, a gender reveal party, when she shares pictures of the ultrasound, it seems to me SHE thinks so, too. To ME, defining species by whether such is "wanted" or not isn’t science at all. To me, to agree that that one I’m looking at in the ultrasound sucking her thumb is not a Homo Sapiens, not .human but rather is a __________ well, they should show the science that proves that if they insist that’s what science says.



NOT PROPERTY.

It seems to me have this philosophy, this morality, deep in the American soul that humans can be property. We saw this in full bloom 150 plus years ago as many claimed that yes the African is a human (impossible to claim otherwise) BUT in some cases, he or she is just PROPERTY. There's an owner and owners can do with their PROPERTY as they please, even "terminate" him or her. I hope even non-Christians agree this is immoral. And we (as a society and nation) dealt with that 150 years ago (although it took a literal war) and declared, loud and clear, NO human is property, NO ONE owns another human being. But here we are again.... with endless shouts of “MINE.” Until it's proven to me that an unborn girl is just a lifeless THING (like a coffee mug) or a living non-human (perhaps a bunny rabbit), then we have a human (just as that ultrasound shows)... and therefore she's not property! And there is no owner! Now, acknowledging this, some will reply, "Yes, she's human and not property - but she's a DEVELOPING human and it's moral to "terminate" a human who is still developing." Ah. But a 12 year-old girl is still developing too so the morality they are defending applies just as much to a 12-year-old as to a 12-week-old. It's obviously immoral; no spin changes that.



TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT.

Proponents of abortions dwell on a sad, tragic reality that we MUST not evade: There can be horrible, tragic situations! We live in a fallen, sinful, broken world where terrible things happen. Even to completely innocent people. There are horrible and very REAL stories, and we must not gloss over these! There’s one point pro-abortion people often make that I’m glad about – they point out that we have TWO people deeply involved in this situation – there’s the mother, too! And sometimes it’s not the beautiful situation we all want to assume is the case. While abortions because of rape or incest together account for less than 1% of all abortions, they are realities. And there are other realities, too! But some seem to hold that the proper response is to kill the most innocent party. I'd argue that two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes a bigger wrong. Instead of punishing the child, we need to help the mother. We need to "be there" for BOTH mother and child, for ALL threatened and abused. Those tragic stories suggest help for the mother, not killing the child.



HUMAN RIGHTS.

Much talk is made of "rights" these days, especially in the US. There is a basic American view that there are inalienable rights granted by the Creator. We'd agree on some: Freedom of speech, for example. But there is one “right” above all the rest, one right on which all other others completely, totally depend: The right to life, the right to exist, the right to be. If my life is taken away, what difference does it make if I have freedom of speech? Again, I know the response: “But some humans are just property, and property has no rights.” But we know from history that any can reduce others to just property: Hitler and the Jews, A lot of Americans and African slaves, many have been victims of this "human but property" morality. If we are to embrace rights at all – even just the concept of rights – then there obviously is one that must be cherished and protected above all others.





.

Still twaddle.

 

[tango]

Still twaddle.

What a well thought out counter argument. I stand in awe of your reasoning.

 

[Lanman87]

Can anyone tell me one single positive result from forcing a raped child to have a child?

A baby gets to live.

Rape is a horrible and traumatic crime. The situations are complicated and troubling to say the least.

However, if you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder of human being, then the only logical outcome is to let the baby live and be adopted by caring parents. It is not the baby's fault on how he/she was conceived. And the baby has a right to live, to grow, to learn, to listen to music, to fall in love, and experience the joys and deal with the sadness of living out a human life.

If there are no health issues with the 10 year old girl giving birth then the girl will still survive and will get a chance to emotionally recover and hopefully, will thrive. The baby should have the same chance.

One thing to keep if mind when discussing this topic, is that only between 1%-4% of abortions in the USA are from pregnancies that resulted in rape or incest (depending on the study). Somewhere in the same range are abortions due to the mother's life being endangered.

At the very least, over 90% of abortions are a choice made by mothers so they do not have to deal with having a child.

I say we make the rule (abortions are wrong and should not happen) and come to a consensus on the exceptions (rape, incest, mother's life in danger).

My personal opinion is that the only time abortion should be allowed is if the mother's life is threatened by being pregnant. My rationale is that most children would gladly give up their life to protect their mother. However, if the consensus is that abortion is outlawed except in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life then I'm much better off with that being the case than unrestricted abortions for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Bluezone777]

I don't know if anyone noticed this but the entirety of Kiwimac's argument stems entirely from emotions. He doesn't present evidence because that's not the realm from which he argues morality. He sees a morality question and asks which choice makes him feel the best while others here look at the question and ask what is right and true. To define truth, one must go to the facts and evidence as you know your feelings aren't a good indicator of truth while one who only looks for what feels good just goes to their emotions and imagines making each choice and sees how each choice makes them feel. They don't bother with evidence because they don't need to know how they feel.

If you try presenting facts and evidence that doesn't make him feel good, he will dismiss it out of hand because he operates on the assumption that all things must make him feel good to be true and anything that doesn't make him feel good must be false regardless of the presence or absence of evidence.

This is why God states in the Bible that "the righteous shall live by faith" as they simply trust God when He says to do or not to do something because they know sin is always made to look and feel good at the start so they can't use their feelings to determine what's good so they just take God at His word instead and just trust him even when the evidence(feelings) says otherwise. Once you've been ensnared by sin is when the good feelings vanish and the suffering begins once it has you in its grasp. A good example of this at work is addiction of any kind. Any addict will tell you essentially the same story about how good it felt in the beginning and how miserable they are now as the misery started and they are convinced they can't stop as they know the thing they are addicted to is destroying their health and their life. All sin does this but you can really see it with addicts.

 

[Josiah]

I don't know if anyone noticed this but the entirety of Kiwimac's argument stems entirely from emotions.

Yup.

And when anyone presents anything, the apologetic is "twaddle."

It seems MUCH of the pro-abortion position is just their own emotion.... and a refusal to actually discuss the issue.

To define truth, one must go to the facts and evidence as you know your feelings aren't a good indicator of truth while one who only looks for what feels good just goes to their emotions and imagines making each choice and sees how each choice makes them feel. They don't bother with evidence because they don't need to know how they feel.

Ahha.

If you try presenting facts and evidence that doesn't make him feel good, he will dismiss it out of hand because he operates on the assumption that all things must make him feel good to be true and anything that doesn't make him feel good must be false regardless of the presence or absence of evidence.

Right.

And it's typical.




.

 

[Albion]

I don't know if anyone noticed this but the entirety of Kiwimac's argument stems entirely from emotions. He doesn't present evidence because that's not the realm from which he argues morality. He sees a morality question and asks which choice makes him feel the best while others here look at the question and ask what is right and true.

I don't want to diminish your point, but it isn't a case of "entirety." There is also a strong dose of misinformation about the facts of the matter. That he wants to believe the misinformation I won't dispute.

However, the factual claims such as the "clump of cells" argument put him, so far as these posts are concerned, into the category of "Science Denier." Ironically, and as we know, that's a favorite of the far Left when it wants to denigrate a position taken by political Moderates.

 

[Lees]

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

www.theguardian.com

---

Can anyone tell me one single positive result from forcing a raped child to have a child?

Everything surrounding a 10 year old's decison...is forced.

If a 10 year old gives consent and has sex with a man, that man is guilty of rape. Her consent doesn't matter.

In other words, the law doesn't allow for her decision one way or the other.

The law always forces the issue when it comes to minors.

I believe that is a positive. I believe it protects the minors.

That being said, concerning abortion, in the case you described, I believe the parents of the child should be allowed to make the decison of whether or not to abort. I believe abortion in such a case is justified, if they so decide.

Lees

 

[atpollard]

I have given this story some thought. It points out several important things that need to be brought into the PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

1. We need to stop talking about Abortion as a “woman’s choice” issue. Whenever one human being decides to end the life of another human being, it is not about “privacy” or “personal choice”. Is it my “personal choice” to shoot a room full of people, or have my “choices” impacted more than just me? An extreme example, but it makes the point.
2. A raped, pregnant 10 year old girl is a radically dramatic example, but it does point out the reality that “Abortions” are also a medical decision. Setting aside the rape question, a pregnant 10 year old presents a heightened medical risk to the mother. It is potential that the risk is unreasonably high and most likely to result in two deaths (mother and infant). There are also complications during pregnancy that render the survival of the infant impossible and the death of the mother very likely (like a baby growing outside of the uterus in the abdominal cavity). These are cases where an abortion may be a reasonable medical necessity.
3. The fact that the child had to go to another state points out that Ohio needs to have a serious conversation about whether there is NEVER a medical cause for an abortion as a medical procedure.
4. The issue with the girl is being played in the press as a “political” issue. That is unreasonable since nobody supports the rape of anyone. Nobody supports 10 year old girls becoming mothers (there is no push to lower the marriage age). Sadly, there are people that support murdering babies on demand (but not enough in the state of Ohio, apparently) and they are the only ones that are “in favor” of this story … because it is fodder to avoid the real discussions (#1 to #3 above).

 

[Albion]

Many good points there, but I cannot help thinking..."Which side is it that is actually intent upon making the controversy be an 'all or nothing' matter?"

It seems to be the pro-abortion side, doesn't it?

 

[tango]

Many good points there, but I cannot help thinking..."Which side is it that is actually intent upon making the controversy be an 'all or nothing' matter?"

It seems to be the pro-abortion side, doesn't it?

I'm not entirely sure that's fair. It seems to me some on one side wants abortion on demand without restrictions and some on the other side want outright bans without exceptions. Neither stance seems to survive real world situations very well.