10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for abortion

[Albion]

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.

I wouldn't deny what you said there. Some people want it to be either totally legal or, OTOH, totally illegal.

Still, the way I was looking at the matter was to ask how each side stands--not just the limits that the extremes on each side are willing to go--with regard to the question.

I continue to think that the pro-abortion side counts relatively few people who are willing to be open to exceptional circumstances such as have been mentioned here already, whereas even among people on the pro-life side it is generally considered to be "going too far" to insist that there be no exceptions whatsoever.

 

[tango]

I wouldn't deny what you said there. Some people want it to be either totally legal or, OTOH, totally illegal.

Still, the way I was looking at the matter was to ask how each side stands--not just the limits that the extremes on each side are willing to go--with regard to the question.

I continue to think that the pro-abortion side counts relatively few people who are willing to be open to exceptional circumstances such as have been mentioned here already, whereas even among people on the pro-life side it is generally considered to be "going too far" to insist that there be no exceptions whatsoever.

Since both sides seem to span a range from rational positions to rabid howling I'm not sure the question of what "each side" wants is even relevant.

 

[Albion]

Since both sides seem to span a range from rational positions to rabid howling I'm not sure the question of what "each side" wants is even relevant.

Well, you don't have to think it is, but I feel that the difference does matter, and that's because the two sides are locked in a contest to see which one can impose as much as possible of its wishes upon a final settlement when the effects of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade shake out.

With that in mind, it seems evident that the pro-abortion activists and their elected representatives are much less willing, overall, than their opposite number to take account of and consider any possible exceptions to the standard such as those we have already referred to.

 

[tango]

Well, you don't have to think it is, but I feel that the difference does matter, and that's because the two sides are locked in a contest to see which one can impose as much as possible of its wishes upon a final settlement when the effects of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade shake out.

With that in mind, it seems evident that the pro-abortion activists and their elected representatives are much less willing, overall, than their opposite number to take account of and consider any possible exceptions to the standard such as those we have already referred to.

I hear what you're saying, I'm still not sure that it's helpful to consider this as a matter of two sides, given the tendency for things to turn into oversimplified "yes" or "no" questions when many people on both sides see it in shades of gray.

If you're talking about two sides, which side would you place someone like me? Someone who is generally opposed to abortion but accepts that in some situations (like this one, involved the 10-year-old rape victim) it may be the best of a bunch of bad options. Am I on the "pro life" side in that I am generally opposed to abortion, or the "pro choice" side in that I accept that in some situations the choice to terminate a pregnancy needs to exist?

Put another way, is it helpful to act as if the moderates on either side are more or less the same as the extremists on the same side?

 

[Albion]

I hear what you're saying, I'm still not sure that it's helpful to consider this as a matter of two sides, given the tendency for things to turn into oversimplified "yes" or "no" questions when many people on both sides see it in shades of gray.

All right, but there's nothing too complicated about it. I was simply observing that the pro-abortion activists and elected officials seem much less willing to consider any exceptions to abortion-on-demand than the pro-life people as a whole who seem willing--most of them--to consider some exceptions to their ideal scenario (the ten-year-old rape victim, for instance).

So, it's not more complicated than that, and I'm not proposing any course of action simply because I have made this observation about the ongoing controversy.

If you're talking about two sides, which side would you place someone like me? Someone who is generally opposed to abortion but accepts that in some situations (like this one, involved the 10-year-old rape victim) it may be the best of a bunch of bad options. Am I on the "pro life" side in that I am generally opposed to abortion, or the "pro choice" side in that I accept that in some situations the choice to terminate a pregnancy needs to exist?

IMHO, that would put you on the pro-life side, but of course I'd be more confident about that answer if I knew more about your views.

 

[Josiah]

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.

I know of none who want to forbid abortion when the pregnancy is a serious, real threat to the PHYSICAL life of the mother (the Catholic Church for example permits abortion in that case) And many support it in cases of rape and incest (together, less than 1% of abortions) - although I do not.




.

 

[atpollard]

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 think that is driven by the courts and “Judicial Activism”. I know that some states attempted to restrict abortions “except where necessary for the health of the mother” and the courts determined that the anxiety of the mother qualified as “mental health” turning “medical necessity” into “abortion on demand”. That forced those opposed to “abortion on demand” to close all doors that the Courts could abuse to “find rights”.

I think that sort of “dishonest dialogue” drives both sides to extremes. The root cause is making a medical issue into a political football in the Legal Arena.

 

[tango]

I know of none who want to forbid abortion when the pregnancy is a serious, real threat to the PHYSICAL life of the mother (the Catholic Church for example permits abortion in that case) And many support it in cases of rape and incest (together, less than 1% of abortions) - although I do not.

The fact this 10-year-old rape victim apparently has to travel out of state to terminate the pregnancy shows there are clearly some out there who would forbid abortion even in extreme cases. I don't personally know people who believe that but these laws suggest they are out there.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

If God created a 10-year old girl in such a way to where she can have her period at that age, then certainly God gave her the ability to carry a baby to full term at that age.

And let’s say that she did. Let’s just say, hypothetically speaking, that she gave birth to the child and survived. Then let’s say that she gave the child up, and was adopted by very loving parents in a nice big house in a wealthy neighborhood. And let’s say that when the child turns 5 or 6 they send the child to Kindergarten. Then a school shooter walks into the Kindergarten class with an AR-15 assault rifle and blows the child’s brains out.

Should the shooter be charged with murder?

Of course! Nobody is going to make the argument that because the child’s mother is a victim of rape or incest then that suddenly makes it OK to murder the child. Nobody in their right mind will make the argument, “The child is a product of rape, so the shooter should not be charged with murder.”

What? That’s preposterous!

Why do we acknowledge that it’s murder for a shooter to use a gun to blow the child’s brains out, but we don’t acknowledge that it’s murder for a doctor to use a medical instrument to suck the child’s brains out through a vacuum, rip off its arms and legs, crush its skull, and then throw it’s body into the trash?

If my mom gave birth to me at 10 years old because of rape, then do you want to murder me too?

“Thou shalt not murder.”

Just because someone commits rape, that doesn’t justify murder. The fact that she has to cross state lines in order to murder a life is not the tragedy. The tragedy is that we still have states that are legally murdering children.

Now, let me just specify, if the 10-year old girl’s life is at stake, then obviously, if terminating her pregnancy is the ONLY way of saving her, then of course you would want to choose the lesser of the two evils, and save her life. But can it even be proven that terminating the child will save the mother’s life?

Many adopted children aren’t even allowed to find out who their birth parents are until after they turn 18. Any many of them find themselves in their 20’s realizing, “Oh, hey, I could totally find out who my birth parents are now. I totally forgot about that.” And they end up realizing that they don’t even care to find out, and just leave it a mystery. Many adopted children grow up never even knowing who their birth parents are.

So any adopted child will totally be able to live a normal happy life without having to know the tragic details surrounding their birth. And even if they do find out, is that so terrible? Is it so terrible for them to know the truth? Does that make them feel any less of God’s love, or any less of their adopted parent’s love? Is the truth going to prevent them from contributing to society and making a positive impact in the world?

Steve Jobs was adopted. How different would the world of technology be today if his mother chose to abort him instead of giving him up for adoption? Would we even have the iPhone? The Macintosh?

Never underestimate the difference one human life can make.

Imagine if Lot’s daughters aborted their children because they were impregnated by their father. We wouldn’t have Moab. And if we didn’t have Moab, would we not have the book of Ruth?

Imagine if Tamar aborted her twins because she was impregnated by her father-in-law. We would not have Perez, one of the names mentioned in Jesus’ lineage.

What if Jacob allowed Benjamin to be aborted in order to save Rachel’s life. We wouldn’t have Benjamin. And since Paul was a descendant of Benjamin, we wouldn’t have Paul. And since Paul wrote most of the New Testament, would we have all of the New Testament books today?

 

[atpollard]

Never underestimate the difference one human life can make.

Imagine if Lot’s daughters aborted their children because they were impregnated by their father. We wouldn’t have Moab. And if we didn’t have Moab, would we not have the book of Ruth?

Imagine if Tamar aborted her twins because she was impregnated by her father-in-law. We would not have Perez, one of the names mentioned in Jesus’ lineage.

What if Jacob allowed Benjamin to be aborted in order to save Rachel’s life. We wouldn’t have Benjamin. And since Paul was a descendant of Benjamin, we wouldn’t have Paul. And since Paul wrote most of the New Testament, would we have all of the New Testament books today?

Thank you for providing this perspective.

 

[Albion]

The fact this 10-year-old rape victim apparently has to travel out of state to terminate the pregnancy shows there are clearly some out there who would forbid abortion even in extreme cases.

Maybe...if that story was indeed true.

There is no reason to believe it to be factual. Its origin was nothing more credible than second hand hearsay which came with almost no specifics to back up the tale. And then it was repeated by the current occupant of the White House who also has claimed to have been a cowboy, to have received an appointment to one of our service academies, and to have graduated at or near the top of his law school class...none of which was true.

The fact checker for the liberal newspaper Washington Post acknowledged that the claim was unverified.

EVEN IF it were true, you say that the child was "forced" to travel outside of her state for an abortion, and I see nothing here that explains who or what might have "forced" her to do that, if we even could agree on what being "forced" in this case might mean.

According to one report, the pregnant girl had waited too long to be eligible for an abortion which would have been permitted under the laws of her own state, so she responded by sidestepping the laws of her own state by going to another one whose laws were more lenient. Where's the "forced" in that scenario?

shows there are clearly some out there who would forbid abortion even in extreme cases. I don't personally know people who believe that but these laws suggest they are out there.

and yet here ^ we are told who it is that we're supposed to blame for forcing a ten year old to travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

 

[Albion]

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.

Ordinarily, society considers a person who is almost certainly going to be killed if there is no intervention to be the one most in need of protection.

The other party here may be psychologically impacted (as you suggested) but is not likely to lose her life thanks to a procedure that she herself has chosen to undergo.

 

[kiwimac]

Ordinarily, society considers a person who is almost certainly going to be killed if there is no intervention to be the one most in need of protection.

The other party here may be psychologically impacted (as you suggested) but is not likely to lose her life thanks to a procedure that she herself has chosen to undergo.

Twaddle.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Dear Twaddle,

I kinda doubted that you could be serious with that previous post.

I mean...calling a human child who's already old enough to have working body parts, etc. a mere "zygote." LOL

 

[Josiah]

The fact this 10-year-old rape victim apparently has to travel out of state to terminate the pregnancy shows there are clearly some out there who would forbid abortion even in extreme cases. I don't personally know people who believe that but these laws suggest they are out there.

My point was that there is no absolute necessity that we embrace EITHER that all abortions be permitted - regardless of anything OR that NO abortion be permitted - regardless of anything. That binary model is not the only possibility. Nearly every country that permits abortion has restrictions in place.

AND I pointed out that pro-life advocates are not necessarily against all abortions - regardless of anything. For example, the Catholic Church permits such to save the life of the mother, indeed even if the physical life of the mother is significantly threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

The extreme, radical view (shared only by North Korea, as I understand it) is on the pro-choice side, who argue that it's the mother's CHOICE no matter what. I saw an interview at Facebook (yeah, I know) of a Planned Parenthood person being asked about various situations - including abortion for gender selection - and NO MATTER WHAT. she just kept chanting the mantra: "I support a woman's right to choose." Even when late-term abortion was mentioned - where the head of the baby is kept from exiting while the baby is killed. same "I support a woman's right to choose."

I'm about as pro-life as any, but my view is similar to the Catholic one: I permit such when the physical health of the mother is in significant danger, after all if the mother dies, so does the baby so in that case, we're saving ONE of them via the abortion (so, oddly, in that case, there's a pro-life basis). Many pro-lifers accept it in cases of rape or incest (both together account for one-half of one percent of abortions) acknowledging that policy is impossible to implement (it's VERY hard to prove rape), the Republican Party accepts that. I don't.

POINT: It doesn't necessarily have to be EXTREME either/or. Actually, I think only some on the pro-abortion side take that stance.




.

 

[Josiah]

Twaddle.

Impressive reasoning




.

 

[tango]

Twaddle.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

And another truly epic counterargument....

 

[tango]

My point was that there is no absolute necessity that we embrace EITHER that all abortions be permitted - regardless of anything OR that NO abortion be permitted - regardless of anything. That binary model is not the only possibility. Nearly every country that permits abortion has restrictions in place.

AND I pointed out that pro-life advocates are not necessarily against all abortions - regardless of anything. For example, the Catholic Church permits such to save the life of the mother, indeed even if the physical life of the mother is significantly threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

The extreme, radical view (shared only by North Korea, as I understand it) is on the pro-choice side, who argue that it's the mother's CHOICE no matter what. I saw an interview at Facebook (yeah, I know) of a Planned Parenthood person being asked about various situations - including abortion for gender selection - and NO MATTER WHAT. she just kept chanting the mantra: "I support a woman's right to choose." Even when late-term abortion was mentioned - where the head of the baby is kept from exiting while the baby is killed. same "I support a woman's right to choose."

I'm about as pro-life as any, but my view is similar to the Catholic one: I permit such when the physical health of the mother is in significant danger, after all if the mother dies, so does the baby so in that case, we're saving ONE of them via the abortion (so, oddly, in that case, there's a pro-life basis). Many pro-lifers accept it in cases of rape or incest (both together account for one-half of one percent of abortions) acknowledging that policy is impossible to implement (it's VERY hard to prove rape), the Republican Party accepts that. I don't.

POINT: It doesn't necessarily have to be EXTREME either/or. Actually, I think only some on the pro-abortion side take that stance.

Sure, I think I've been quite clear in that I'm broadly opposed to abortion but under some circumstances accept it is the best of a bunch of bad options. You really don't need to explain the alternatives to an extreme either/or, given I make no secret of being somewhere between the two extremes

In situations like this (which I'd assumed to be true since it was the entire basis of the thread, although some comments cast doubt on that) it would seem that allowing a child who isn't even into her teenage years to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape isn't an ideal situation but then no possible outcomes are particularly desirable. Yes, we can all pontificate about what might happen but there are so many "what ifs" on either side that it becomes a pointless exercise. Assuming the lead story was true and a child was forced to go out of state for an abortion it would suggest that her home state had restrictions on abortion that are arguably too strict.

As you say making an exception in cases of rape opens a can of worms because it creates a perverse incentive for a woman to claim she was raped even if she wasn't, in order to qualify for an abortion. The last thing we need is entirely innocent parties to an entirely consensual act thrown under the bus because it came with an unwanted surprise for one of the other parties. My understanding is that there are ways to verify rape claims but only if they are made very soon after the fact, and a reasonable proportion of rape victims don't immediately report their rape. Once any physical evidence has become undetectable the entire matter boils down to little more than the eternal "he said, she said" where the chances are neither side can produce any concrete evidence to support their claim.

 

[Albion]

Assuming the lead story was true and a child was forced to go out of state for an abortion it would suggest that her home state had restrictions on abortion that are arguably too strict.

"Arguably" being the key word there.

So what's "arguably too strict?" The pro-abortion crowd is emphatic that it's any moment before every part of the child leaves the birth canal--and possibly some minutes or even longer afterwards while killing the child is debated.

Is that a reasonable standard??

 

[Josiah]

As you say making an exception in cases of rape opens a can of worms because it creates a perverse incentive for a woman to claim she was raped even if she wasn't, in order to qualify for an abortion. The last thing we need is entirely innocent parties to an entirely consensual act thrown under the bus because it came with an unwanted surprise for one of the other parties.

One reason why I stated I do not support that exception.

I merely pointed out that SOME do (the Republican Party for example), I accept one: When the physical life of the mother is significantly endangered (the position of the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, etc.). It need not be entirely "yes" or "no", I think the vast majority of Americans can accept that abortion may be moral in specific cases (for example, to save the life of the mother and thus likely also the child) but reject others (such as gender selection). As I noted, it seems to be mostly the pro-abortion side that frames this in the extreme that ALL abortions must be allowed - including the abortionist holding the head of the baby so as to keep her mostly in the womb while he slits her throat abortions because Mom doesn't want a girl, etc.... ALWAYS her choice, no matter what, no matter when, no matter how.




.