Girl, 9, aborts twins after rape

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
[
It is easy to see even for a lay person like myself that the chances of survival for this little girl are slim at best and even less for the unborns. Why risk the life of a an existing viable person for the sake of blind obedience to a 'law' created by man supposedly in the name of god.

[edit on 5/3/2009 by VIKINGANT]

I think you should change your name to Nostradamus since you know the future enough to choose death over life.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
[
It is easy to see even for a lay person like myself that the chances of survival for this little girl are slim at best and even less for the unborns. Why risk the life of a an existing viable person for the sake of blind obedience to a 'law' created by man supposedly in the name of god.

[edit on 5/3/2009 by VIKINGANT]

I think you should change your name to Nostradamus since you know the future enough to choose death over life.

and, I think you are doing the same....chosing the slim chance that those babies may have been born alive over the much greater chance that the nine year old would have died...

this is a major problem with the way things are.....they think that they should be entitled to having those two babies added to the world, and this pesky nine year old girl is depriving them of their rights!! when in fact, bringing life into the world is a sacrifice made by the mother, with great pain, and really quite a bit of danger to her life. because they can't see this act as the sacrifice it truly is, motherhood is never recognized for the value it has, women are never recognized for the value that they give the world!

you dear, have no right to say that this girl should or should not be willing to give up her life on a half arsed chance that she may be able to pass life onto someone else! that is a choice only she could make, since she was a minor, her parent made it for her, and well, now the church wants to charge her mom for being a good mother and protecting her child! again, the natural insticts god instilled in men can run full rampant, even to the point of raping their own children, but heaven forbid a women shows any flipping sign of having these insticts in her being!

Originally posted by dawnstar

and, I think you are doing the same....chosing the slim chance that those babies may have been born alive over the much greater chance that the nine year old would have died...

Slim chance.... I bet if I pulled something out of the air...like 90% plus of success I would be closer to the truth.

you dear, have no right to say that this girl should or should not be willing to give up her life on a half arsed chance that she may be able to pass life onto someone else! that is a choice only she could make, since she was a minor, her parent made it for her, and well, now the church wants to charge her mom for being a good mother and protecting her child! again, the natural insticts god instilled in men can run full rampant, even to the point of raping their own children, but heaven forbid a women shows any flipping sign of having these insticts in her being!

I have not said whether she should have the babies or not. My point has been morality or lack of...

I didn't see her parents protecting her in the first place, but I guess they are doing it now. If you argued that rape was the right thing, or murder, or euthanasia based on socal reasons I would argue against all of it.

So the raping of that girl is a very wrong and sad event due to many people failing her, and the man who did it should get the maximum punishment that can be delt....so I'm not picking or choosing one wrong event over another.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtrozero]

90% chance of of what was it?? 80 kilogram nine year old girl would be able to deliver twins without suffering tragic harm to her own person???

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.

well...obviously, the judges in this case saw it differently? they either saw a definate risk to the mother, or very slim chance of survival of the babies, or both!!

as far as the mother's ability to protect her daughter from her husband......um...ya, sure, there was a time not long ago that women in this country didn't have a legal leg to stand on to protect their kids from their husbands either!!! what the heck, she consented to allow this girl to have an abortion that more than likely saved her life, and well....the cathalic church wants to charge her with murder...and who knows, maybe they do have the power to do this!! what the heck would they have done if she had stepped in to protect this child from the one who "God" appointed to be her head, her provider, her preist, her "Christ"??

one thing is for danged sure, they certainly wouldn't have helped her get her child away from her rapist!!

I am wondering if the song you are singing would change it's tune if it was your mother, wife, sister or fully developed daughter that was pregnant, and the doctor was telling you that she would more than likely not be able to handle the strain of carrying one baby...that death could be the result...

and mind you...

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 36-kilogram girl. "She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

this is the director of the hospital saying this, someone who more than likely knows a heck of alot more about medicine than you or me....
but, of course....
she's lying, right?

it's a 79 pound little girl for crying out loud!!!


[edit on 5-3-2009 by dawnstar]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by dawnstar]

This is just an example of a moral issue that isn't black and white. This case falls well into the gray area. The church sees abortion as a bad thing no matter what. Most of us realize that other variables must be considered as well... such as the chances of a 9yo's survival, the well being of the newborns, etc.

Unfortunately, the church isn't into the habit of revising their rules. It's been a long time since the church set it standards for morality. Since then our understanding of morality has evolved, but they didn't update their rulebook.

reply to post by Kruel

ya, the problem is.....
some of it's followers haven't either....

yahoo once had forums on it, and I would visit them some.....

and well....there was a guy that came on the domestic violence forums that was all gun hoe about preserving the male dominance role, he proceeded to rebuke one girl for leaving her husband...who was beating the crap out of her.....
well...come to find out, when this girl left, she didn't have anywhere to go, she was living in a car!! she didn't want her children in such a situation so, she didn't take them with her....
well, after she left, dad proceeded to rape the daughter, this guys response was to try to make her feel guilty, she should have been there to protect her little girl"" SHE COULDN'T EVEN PROTECT HERSELF FROM THIS GUY (who she claimed was in a prominant position in the church by the way!!), so, well, how could she have protected the daughter? and well, where was the church during all of this, that they couldn't at least put a roof over her and her kid's head till she could get it together? gee, they didn't wish to believe her, they were too busy trying to preserve that "God Given" male dominant role to jeopordize it by doing such a thing!!

this guy also had the nerve to tell me that a husband couldn't really rape his wife....since well, it was his body to enjoy....well, then I told him that one of the reasons I left the church was that hey, less than six weeks after the birth of my first child, well, my husband forced himself on me....against doctors order, and well, rip went the stitches and all...and well, I just couldn't come to terms with the idea that God would place anyone with that much authority over me that he would wish me to allow myself to endure that kind of pain!!

in my opinion, the christian church may have had some nice ideas within it in the beginning, but well, the men in power soon twisted it to suit their needs and then it said just about what every other religion was saying....
God set up a hierarchy and appointed lords and servants, and then servants for some of the servants......
when all the while, Christ in the Bible, in bold red letters, says that hey, his children will hear only his voice, and only him will they obey!


[edit on 5-3-2009 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think you should change your name to Nostradamus since you know the future enough to choose death over life.

I am not choosing anything. I just cannot understand the twisted mentality of wanting ths child to go through with this pregnancy. As a guy I personally wouldnt know, but as a father of 5 I know enough to realise that pregnancy can be tough on a fully matured woman. I wouldn't want to imagine what it would be like for an undeveloped child.

Not only this, but medical science strongly suggests that the likelyhood of survival for 'mother' and children is not that great. I really dont think it takes Nostradamus to work that out.

That poor little girl - how unspeakable.

What concerns me is what is happening evolution-wise. A girl of that age should not be able to become pregnant - that would have been impossible a few years ago.

Why are girls able to become mothers younger and younger? Has this anything to do with the fat epidemic?

Of course she should not have been forced to give birth. This is very sad and I weep for her because she will probably not be able to have a normal life after this.

As for churches - I have always said that they are man-made and totally wrong - both about their interpretations of religion, and what they visit on people.

Why doesn't the catholic church just shut up and go back to Rome.
Does anyone really take any notice of these sactimonious hypocrites.

No No No - the churches are up to here in crap.

Just to stop a line-liner - the churches are up to here in crap.

Yet another example of the cruelty of man-made religious doctrine. To think that anyone, ANYONE, would consider heaping additional trauma upon this this girl who has suffered fully documented sexual abuse at the hands of a "family" member.

These are the very same religions that promote the idea of devils and demons tempting mankind to perform the most heinous, hateful and cruel acts upon one another.

Heh... who needs an outside evil force when we have man-made religions?

Originally posted by dawnstar

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 36-kilogram girl. "She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

this is the director of the hospital saying this, someone who more than likely knows a heck of alot more about medicine than you or me....
but, of course....
she's lying, right?

it's a 79 pound little girl for crying out loud!!!

Well if it is a high risk to the mother than I agree, when you are down to this type of choice then the mother comes first. When people predetermined that a child might have a bad life as a reason to abort it then I find the need to speak about morality of our society.

i do apologise, and retract everything i said, humbly and unreservedly

[edit on 6/3/09 by feoil]

Originally posted by feoil
The twins didn't rape anyone, in fact they weren't even there. Was the rapist executed? Execute the defenceless if it makes you feel better, but really, it won't.

Let me speak from a mother's standpoint...

My 9 year old daughter didn't asked to be raped or thrust into a situation of carrying to term twins in a 9 year old body and then hopefully living through the delivery - no matter what type it was.

You go ahead and swing your arms in higher moral standing. As a mother, my 9 year old daughter would not have to endure further psychological, physical and emotional damage because of the crime committed against her. As a mother, I would protect MY CHILD no matter what.

This isn't a grown woman, an promiscuous adolescent...this is a baby, a nine year old little girl.

SHE is the innocent.

reply to post by Valhall


I hadn't fully read the thread, my words were unthinking and as a parent i am ashamed. I am very sorry.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by truthquest

 

Does this 9 year old human not have any rights? What about her right to her child hood, or her right to let her body grow and mature without being mutilated, or perhaps her right to life? We cannot say for sure but I really wouldnt like her chances carrying these 2 babies for 30 odd weeks....

People of any age have the right to self defense. Self defense may definitely involve an abortion if there is a clear and present danger. So the Catholic church should in that case suggest an abortion if it comes down to that point.

As for childhood rights, when you hit puberty you are not a child any longer. If you are capable of being pregnant you simply are not a child in my book. But either way I have no idea what that Catholic church would say about that.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by truthquest]

doesnt matter if your pro or anti abortion it should still be sickning.. no matter what side of the fence your on .. and at nine yrs old what kind of things could go wrong with her development with body and mind of going through a pregnancy? im sure there would be some kind of effect to the poor girl wheres the puke icon this wil have to do

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by truthquest
In any case, rights are a faith-based belief. There is nothing in physics to suggest the existence of rights. So you can go ahead and pretend you are morally superior to the Catholic church. Or you just realize it the whole concept of abortion rights is one faith, while equally valid on the other end of the spectrum is the concept of human rights.

The idea is very simple and powerful. If you are a human, you get rights. If you are a fetus human, you get rights. This is the position of the Catholic Church. It is not my position, but it is a perfectly understandable and highly reasonable one. It makes sense!

Do sperms have rights too then? How about ovaries? At what point is a fetus a "human." Is aborting a petri-dish insemination immoral? As far as I'm concerned morality is plurality. The only "natural rights" we have are the ones others grant us or what we can defend from others taking away.

If we're going to apply reason to the argument I'd rather focus on making the lives of those already contributing to our society better than that of a theoretical "human-life. "

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

It is a simple scientific fact that when a sperm & egg unify they join into a living human being. The fact that the one cell starts to reproduce proves it is living, much as all one-celled bacterias are also considered living things by science. Then DNA testing can show what is human and what isn't. Personally I'd say sperm is half of a human, and the egg is the other half.

I believe only some humans should get human rights. However, given the popularity of the phrase "human rights" I'm not going to object very strongly to someone who insists on applying human rights to all humans of any age or gestation.

From an economic standpoint people start contributing to society at least on average here in the USA at age 22. So that really isn't relevant to the abortion debate.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by truthquest]

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by truthquest

 

No offense...but ...I don't think I will not say anymore in fear of a serious T&C violation.

Offense taken. You are implying that the Catholic Church's abortion position is not understandable, but it is. Its sad you are not more open-minded.

In fact the Catholic abortion position can be summarized in three words: Universal human rights.

DNA testing shows who is a human and who is not. And science would suggest that a one-celled human being is alive just as one-celled bacterias are alive.

I take offense that you think you are on moral high ground. You are not. There is no right or wrong answer to the abortion debate. Therefore, it is up to each locality to democratically decide under which circumstances they will punish abortions or allow abortions.

You can take up the issue as a matter of defending the defenseless fetus, or you could take up the issue as a matter of saying the fetus does not deserve any protections but the pregnant woman does, etc.

Personally I think abortion should be 100% legal if no brain-waves can be detected in a fetus, meaning it has no thoughts and feelings yet and is the biological equivalent of a vegetable. However, other people have other positions on abortion and I respect all of them, unlike you who does not and that is a shame because you should not force your morals on others.