9 year old Abortion #2

[Jack Shephard]

Miss B...no fallacy here, unless it is on the Dr part. This was not my opinion-it was the doctors conclusions. The article was talking about that no matter the method of birth that because this girl is so small that her body physically can not handle carrying them-no matter the method of birth. I was going on the basis of what the article states. Either way if it is my daughter there is NO way that she would be having these kids at the age of nine if there were ANY chance of her losing her life.....NO WAY

[coadie]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Miss B...no fallacy here, unless it is on the Dr part. This was not my opinion-it was the doctors conclusions. The article was talking about that no matter the method of birth that because this girl is so small that her body physically can not handle carrying them-no matter the method of birth. I was going on the basis of what the article states. Either way if it is my daughter there is NO way that she would be having these kids at the age of nine if there were ANY chance of her losing her life.....NO WAY

Mis reading this. It was some lawyer that gave the claims.

I read in your post you are ok with killing the unborn children?????

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but the law admits exceptions, allowing it in cases of rape and pregnancies that put the mother's life at risk. Cabral said the abortion was carried out with the consent of the girl and her mother.

since the pregnancy of the child was rape, incest and child abuse, the innocent unborn were killed.

I sure have no reason that the mom wouldn't have gaiend weight and carried the children to a reasonable weight. It isn't likely they would have gone full term.


Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.


Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.

The pregnancy was discovered last week when the girl fell ill and her mother took her to a clinic

so they may have been off in their guess that she was at 15 weeks.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Miss B...no fallacy here, unless it is on the Dr part. This was not my opinion-it was the doctors conclusions. The article was talking about that no matter the method of birth that because this girl is so small that her body physically can not handle carrying them-no matter the method of birth. I was going on the basis of what the article states. Either way if it is my daughter there is NO way that she would be having these kids at the age of nine if there were ANY chance of her losing her life.....NO WAY

I wasn't accusing YOU of perpetrating a fallacy.

However, doctors often want us to believe that the only options are the extremes: full term vaginal birth or abortion.

I'm saying that I believe it can be worked out in such a way that all lives are spared, or at least there is a reasonable attempt at such, and no morals are violated.

I'm not buying the extreme scenario, is all I'm saying. I have daughters, too, btw. However, morals are no good if they change for the sake of convenience. Morals and personal preferences are different. If I truly believe that abortion is immoral, as opposed to simply not preferring it, then it is immoral in all circumstances.

It depends on your convictions, what you will do in any given circumstance. Some people will not violate their convictions, even if it means losing their own life, or the life of a loved one. Is that wrong?

Obviously I have never been in the situation that is being presented, but I hope that if were ever in such a situation that my morality and convictions would prevail, and be a guideline for all following decisions. I trust God to make a way that doesn't include a sinful choice.

I also see no reason to spare the child the discomfort of pregnancy, if it means all three lives can be saved. Discomfort and danger shouldn't be confused with one another.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I wasn't accusing YOU of perpetrating a fallacy.

However, doctors often want us to believe that the only options are the extremes: full term vaginal birth or abortion.

I'm saying that I believe it can be worked out in such a way that all lives are spared, or at least there is a reasonable attempt at such, and no morals are violated.

I'm not buying the extreme scenario, is all I'm saying. I have daughters, too, btw. However, morals are no good if they change for the sake of convenience. Morals and personal preferences are different. If I truly believe that abortion is immoral, as opposed to simply not preferring it, then it is immoral in all circumstances.

It depends on your convictions, what you will do in any given circumstance. Some people will not violate their convictions, even if it means losing their own life, or the life of a loved one. Is that wrong?

Obviously I have never been in the situation that is being presented, but I hope that if were ever in such a situation that my morality and convictions would prevail, and be a guideline for all following decisions. I trust God to make a way that doesn't include a sinful choice.

When doctors lie for money.

In cases involving late term abortions, it is a law in some states to have the abortion doc get an independent opinion from another doc that is not related to confirm the health and life of the mother is at risk. They always so claim. We never see late term moms leave an abortuary with the baby and some doc having siad the mom's health would not be at risk if she had the baby. You can most always find a doc that will agree with abortion medicine.

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I also see no reason to spare the child the discomfort of pregnancy, if it means all three lives can be saved. Discomfort and danger shouldn't be confused with one another.

The child is definitely in danger and it's not just discomfort. Maternal mortality rates are much higher for teenagers. This is a 9 year old.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

The child is definitely in danger and it's not just discomfort. Maternal mortality rates are much higher for teenagers. This is a 9 year old.

I understand that there are risks. I'm saying the moral thing to do is to educate oneself and pursue the option that puts everyone in the least danger, without compromising morality.

My comment about "discomfort" is directed toward those who simply feel a person who has suffered rape or incest shouldn't have to endure a resulting pregnancy. I disagree with that POV, even as I recognize that there is some compassion and humanity in it. The problem with most of the knee-jerk reactions is that they fail to even take the lives of the two unborn children into account.

[jezebelslayer]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand that there are risks. I'm saying the moral thing to do is to educate oneself and pursue the option that puts everyone in the least danger, without compromising morality.

My comment about "discomfort" is directed toward those who simply feel a person who has suffered rape or incest shouldn't have to endure a resulting pregnancy. I disagree with that POV, even as I recognize that there is some compassion and humanity in it. The problem with most of the knee-jerk reactions is that they fail to even take the lives of the two unborn children into account.

I can't imagine that most decisions made under similar circumstances are "knee-jerk".

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jezebelslayer

I can't imagine that most decisions made under similar circumstances are "knee-jerk".

When a parent is emotional, angry, over-wrought, and put into the agonizing place of dealing with a child who has been raped, and is pregnant as a result, I would imagine that is the perfect time FOR a knee-jerk reaction. IOW, an unthinking, emotional, angry reaction and a rash decision?

I would guess that many reactions in a discussion can be "knee-jerk", rather than well thought out.

The fact is, none of us have been in the situation of having our 9 year old daughter become pregnant--at least--not that I'm aware of.

However, it is alright to choose the moral high ground. If, in the situation, I wasn't able to stick with what I consider to be the right thing to do or the best choice, then I would have to live with my decision. But for the sake of discussion I feel it is perfectly alright to state what I feel is the RIGHT thing to do.

I'm sorry that a 9 year old was subjected to a horrific rape--however, that emotional factor shouldn't be used to color good judgment. Hannah and I were just talking about this very thing in her English the other day...she read a story about a fox and several hounds and hunters, and the first few paragraphs described the fox as a pup, cute, fuzzy, wobbly on his legs, vulnerable...so by the time you get to reading about the hunters and hounds, you're already sympathetic with the fox--by design of the author.

It would be silly to read that story and state that hunting is wrong, because of that poor little fox pup. Moral judgment sometimes has to be separated from our emotions.

Personally, I'll save the emotion for when I'm faced with an actual situation. In the meantime, I'm not going to condemn the parents or doctors who made a compassionate decision for the girl, even though I feel it was the wrong one, and that the lives of the unborn were given zero consideration.

Of course, we didn't have the article to read either.

*Pregnancy is obviously less likely to occur from rape than from normal intercourse. So the rarity of such a situation, given the age of the girl and perfect contributing conditions--well, the chances of ANY of us ever being in that situation are pretty negligible. *Source

Again, all I can state is what I feel is the RIGHT thing is for everyone involved--not just the 9 year old. I'm sure that maternal instincts and other emotional factors may kick in and heavily influence my judgment in a traumatic situation. Presently, though, I'm just on the AFF discussing a situation I am not involved in, and therefore have the ability to be somewhat objective.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand that there are risks. I'm saying the moral thing to do is to educate oneself and pursue the option that puts everyone in the least danger, without compromising morality.

My comment about "discomfort" is directed toward those who simply feel a person who has suffered rape or incest shouldn't have to endure a resulting pregnancy. I disagree with that POV, even as I recognize that there is some compassion and humanity in it. The problem with most of the knee-jerk reactions is that they fail to even take the lives of the two unborn children into account.

Wow..... I am not for killing babies unborn or not, but when it comes to MY girl being in the situation this 9 year old-knowing what the experts/doctors saying I have the responsibity as a parent to protect my child at all cost!

In most cased I would NOT be for this, but if my daughter was in this situation then I would handle it how I need to. My responsiblity that God gave me is to protect her at all costs. There is NO way that I would let my daughter carry twins to term knowing that there is even a shread of a chance it would kill her. Morals are very important, but morals go out the window in this case when it comes to protecting my daughter, her health and her life. If this 9 yr old had kept the kids and they didn't make it there could be a chance that they could kill the 9 year old. Anyone that would put the possibility of bringing these twins to terms at the risk of harming their own living child needs to talk to God about that. I know people that were told to abort their child or it would kill the mom and they didn't. The mom lived and so did the child. But put me in that situation my daughters life is 1000 times more important than the risks involved.

I can't believe that there are people on here and mothers nonetheless that would risk their child's life in order to possibly save twins that the most educated and knowledgable people say would kill the 9 year old. God knows all, but if the parents took the chance for her to carry the twins and the 9 year old died then the death of that 9 year old would be on them. Same with any of us.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

The child is definitely in danger and it's not just discomfort. Maternal mortality rates are much higher for teenagers. This is a 9 year old.

correct. And in medicine there is something we call pre natal care. Most mortality data that is separated from a pre natal regimin, tells me very little.
Malnourishment and other variables have a lot of influence. We don't need to kill the babies in anticipation of a difficult pregnancy.