11 year old rape victim forced to carry to term thanks to Ohio law.

[afleitch]

https://buckeyestate.news/2019/05/03/police-ohio-man-raped-11-year-old-who-is-now-pregnant/

Luckily, I think the law hasn't taken full effect. But this is a disturbing 'Central Americanisation' of US state abortion law.

[afleitch]

There's really no reason for anybody to be pro-"life"

You can be pro-life. But it can only be reasonably and morally exercised in a social and political discourse that allows for a freedom to choose.

[afleitch]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

I can live with being a bad person if it means the children of rape victims don't get the death penalty.   

Sure, this position is "anti-empathy," just as opposing the death penalty for murder is.   There would seem to be nothing less empathetic than opposing the death penalty for a murderer, since you are making those victims' families know that their loved one's killer is still alive, and preventing the feeling of closure that comes with the sacrifice of the offender's blood. And yet many people still hold this position because they believe that a life has value no matter the deed or circumstance, and that true healing might be found in something other than responding to violence with violence.

But if the 11 year old, who may still be infantile in her body and physical structure is effectively mutilated through pregnancy and delivery you're cool with that.

[afleitch]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

I can live with being a bad person if it means the children of rape victims don't get the death penalty.   

Sure, this position is "anti-empathy," just as opposing the death penalty for murder is.   There would seem to be nothing less empathetic than opposing the death penalty for a murderer, since you are making those victims' families know that their loved one's killer is still alive, and preventing the feeling of closure that comes with the sacrifice of the offender's blood. And yet many people still hold this position because they believe that a life has value no matter the deed or circumstance, and that true healing might be found in something other than responding to violence with violence.

But if the 11 year old, who may still be infantile in her body and physical structure is effectively mutilated through pregnancy and delivery you're cool with that.

I'm not "cool" with any such thing.
I'm not the one suggesting mutilation of a human body as a solution to anything.

So what is your solution to a child giving birth to a child?

[afleitch]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

I can live with being a bad person if it means the children of rape victims don't get the death penalty.  

Sure, this position is "anti-empathy," just as opposing the death penalty for murder is.   There would seem to be nothing less empathetic than opposing the death penalty for a murderer, since you are making those victims' families know that their loved one's killer is still alive, and preventing the feeling of closure that comes with the sacrifice of the offender's blood. And yet many people still hold this position because they believe that a life has value no matter the deed or circumstance, and that true healing might be found in something other than responding to violence with violence.

But if the 11 year old, who may still be infantile in her body and physical structure is effectively mutilated through pregnancy and delivery you're cool with that.

I'm not "cool" with any such thing.
I'm not the one suggesting mutilation of a human body as a solution to anything.

So what is your solution to a child giving birth to a child?

An 11-year old who is pregnant is likely on the more mature side physiologically and anatomically for her age, but of course a medical determination of the risks must be made in each individual case.   So the medical specifics guide what's permissible, but with the conviction that if it's possible to protect the health of the young mother, it's always better to protect the life growing inside her, for her own sake as well, and support her with everything she needs during her pregnancy and birth. Giving birth can be an affirmation of life and hope in the face of grave injustice; abortion compounds the tragedy.

It's good that you're here to tell women that the baby they don't want to bear from the rape they didn't want to happen is an affirmation of life and hope. It doesn't matter what they think, right? Just so long as you can tell them, no, your anger is wrong, you're hopeful now.

I'm not telling anyone their anger is wrong.  Rage in such a case is completely appropriate.  I'm saying there are ways to respond to it that are constructive and ways that are destructive.

But yet, you don't believe that the best person, if indeed the only person who can determine how they feel about their pregnancy, if indeed they consider it to be one at an early stage is the person themselves? I think that's the key difference; I trust women. From those who do not see their pregnancy in pro-life terms and those who do.They should be the arbiters of this alone. Not men. Not me. Not the state and not self declared moral forces.

[afleitch]

I'm actually really pleased pro-choicers are voicing not only their views but the moral, humanist argument behind them. We've been too lax in this, even in this forum and it's times like these where it's needed.

[afleitch]

None of which has anything to do with a child being forced to give birth to a child.

[afleitch]

I'm claiming the number of parents wanting to adopt a baby - of any race - are far greater than the number available for adoption in this country.

It would be shorter to just say you don't really know what you're talking about.

What is inaccurate?

20 k unrelated domestic infant adoptions per year vs. hundreds of thousands currently seeking to adopt, and millions more who would be willing to.

Were there more successful adoptions per capita when abortion was illegal?

Numbers have fallen since 1970 when they peaked but not drastically. Prior to 1950, institutions were more popular and adoptions rare. But while there's been Roe v Wade there has also been a fall in children per couple anyway and an increase in fertility.

Factory farming children as a commodity through banning abortions to meet the 'demand' for adoptions is quite frankly, f-cking creepy.

Edit: Stats dump https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/archive/MazaAT.htm.

Adoptions now at about 135k. Fertility rate down from 2.5 to 1.9 in the same period. So the fall, relatively, is broadly the same.

[afleitch]

There are never any guarantees.  But why have such a low opinion of a sexual assault survivor as to assume that is all they are capable of?
If she doesn't feel able to raise the child herself, there are many people who would gladly give the child a loving home.

Few of which are Republicans, that's how I am different from the republicans in my pro-life leanings, I care about the children after they are born.

if the only people you know who'd be interested in adoption are Democrats that's kinda unusual but okay, I'm sure they'd be make fine parents anyway

An attempt at humour? Stick to being egregious

[afleitch]

I said that if abortion is murder then it needs to be outlawed, regardless of the fact that some people think otherwise.  I understand that you disagree with my position on abortion, but can't you at least see where I'm coming from?

But taking a life isn't outlawed in every case. Otherwise you wouldn't have the police or armed forces. There's a self-defense argument for abortion you know, not one I would argue but it exists.

[afleitch]

Okay so now I have to ask:

If you assume that I *really* believe that an unborn child is a sacred human life with worth and dignity, not that I'm necessarily right, but just that I really believe it...

Is anything I've said in this thread that you still would find offensive and cruel?  OR is it what you'd expect, but maybe not radical enough? 

You could be direct. You realise that would help. But I'll bite. In this exchange;

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

I can live with being a bad person if it means the children of rape victims don't get the death penalty.   

Sure, this position is "anti-empathy," just as opposing the death penalty for murder is.   There would seem to be nothing less empathetic than opposing the death penalty for a murderer, since you are making those victims' families know that their loved one's killer is still alive, and preventing the feeling of closure that comes with the sacrifice of the offender's blood. And yet many people still hold this position because they believe that a life has value no matter the deed or circumstance, and that true healing might be found in something other than responding to violence with violence.

But if the 11 year old, who may still be infantile in her body and physical structure is effectively mutilated through pregnancy and delivery you're cool with that.

I'm not "cool" with any such thing.
I'm not the one suggesting mutilation of a human body as a solution to anything.

So what is your solution to a child giving birth to a child?

This entire thread is about an 11 year old victim of child rape. You gave a series of non answers in this exchange. I'll ask you again; should a child give birth to a child? If you argue about 'fertility' etc etc (showing, I think, an actual disregard of the physical and mental state of a child as young as 11, in some cases even younger), then can you accept you are accepting and by extension 'passively validating' the outcome of defining childhood by whether or not they can reproduce rather than consent/suffrage?

In short, should a child who under no legal circumstances can consent to any sexual activity be required to deliver a child, the outcome of that, to term? If so on what basis are consent laws required if they do not inform the outcome of such an act?

[afleitch]

Okay so now I have to ask:

If you assume that I *really* believe that an unborn child is a sacred human life with worth and dignity, not that I'm necessarily right, but just that I really believe it...

Is anything I've said in this thread that you still would find offensive and cruel?  OR is it what you'd expect, but maybe not radical enough? 

You could be direct. You realise that would help. But I'll bite. In this exchange;

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that an 11-year-old rape victim should not have the unquestioned right to an abortion either gets off on cruelty or has a completely misguided sense of morality. In other words, you are a bad person. Reflect on yourself, and what morality even means. Morals aren't rules or laws - if only they were so simple.

I can live with being a bad person if it means the children of rape victims don't get the death penalty.   

Sure, this position is "anti-empathy," just as opposing the death penalty for murder is.   There would seem to be nothing less empathetic than opposing the death penalty for a murderer, since you are making those victims' families know that their loved one's killer is still alive, and preventing the feeling of closure that comes with the sacrifice of the offender's blood. And yet many people still hold this position because they believe that a life has value no matter the deed or circumstance, and that true healing might be found in something other than responding to violence with violence.

But if the 11 year old, who may still be infantile in her body and physical structure is effectively mutilated through pregnancy and delivery you're cool with that.

I'm not "cool" with any such thing.
I'm not the one suggesting mutilation of a human body as a solution to anything.

So what is your solution to a child giving birth to a child?

This entire thread is about an 11 year old victim of child rape. You gave a series of non answers in this exchange. I'll ask you again; should a child give birth to a child? If you argue about 'fertility' etc etc (showing, I think, an actual disregard of the physical and mental state of a child as young as 11, in some cases even younger), then can you accept you are accepting and by extension 'passively validating' the outcome of defining childhood by whether or not they can reproduce rather than consent/suffrage?

In short, should a child who under no legal circumstances can consent to any sexual activity be required to deliver a child, the outcome of that, to term? If so on what basis are consent laws required if they do not inform the outcome of such an act?

You were making a claim about the inability of an 11-year old to give birth without major physical damage to her body. I merely pointed out that it isn't necessarily the case given that a girl who fertile at 11 is likely to be relatively physically mature compared to others her age, so one can't assume she is incapable of giving birth normally, and this needs to be determined on an individual medical basis.

If she is not old enough to consent to give birth, she certainly can't be old enough to consent to an abortion either.  So this is presents a very difficult problem but abortion cannot be considered a way out of it.

1. Does an 'individual medical basis' include psychological health reasons which are considered as valid by medical professionals as part of a persons overall health and wellbeing or are those 'suspended' if a woman is pregnant? If so, do you consider a persons psychological wellbeing as of lesser importance and why.

2. In what way is consent needed/required to give birth?

[afleitch]

1. Does an 'individual medical basis' include psychological health reasons which are considered as valid by medical professionals as part of a persons overall health and wellbeing or are those 'suspended' if a woman is pregnant? If so, do you consider a persons psychological wellbeing as of lesser importance and why.

2. In what way is consent needed/required to give birth?

1. A person's psychological well-being is not of lesser importance, but determinations of well being are necessarily more subject to value systems and assumptions about the meaning of human flourishing.  I do not trust any mental health determination which would find abortion compatible with promoting human flourishing of the person undergoing the abortion.

2. Nature does not allow us to say that consent is required to give birth in the same way as for sex.  Our human social abilities thankfully allow us to make the act of sex dependent upon mutual consent, and to call violations of this evil.  We do not have such direct control over the process of reproduction, without destroying life.

I speak as someone who spent ten years in a government position dealing with childhood and adult sexual abuse. I've read reports, medical examinations, witness statements and psychological evaluations of between 2000 and 4000 victims, including children in a similar situation to the OP victim.

I would argue that a person's psychological wellbeing, intrinsically linked with their physical health is determined less by 'value systems' and more by medical understanding. I understand why you might be suspect of that, but do you accept that mistrust may be dogmatic, 'feelings' based and contrary to medical opinion. Why should that have an impact on the rights available to abused girls?

On what other matters are you willing to suspend both rights and accepted medical understanding in order to 're-order' societies response to pregnancy to meet your pre-conceived notions of personhood?

EDIT: You appear to have answered this before I was able to post

No amount of evidence can convince me that someone is better off with their child dead, killed inside of them.

[afleitch]

What mental health condition is it that abortion is supposed to cure, or prevent?  Are these permanent conditions that cannot be treated in other ways?

Having to carry around a reminder of a violent attack is not going to allow a victim to start the healing process and move on. That's common sense.

"Common sense" that ignores the way that caring for someone can reaffirm one's own worth and purpose in life.

Everyone was encouraging and pressuring me to get an abortion…. I had no support, and at times I felt like I was drowning in darkness. Yet I had one magnificent secret gift – the flourishing life of my unborn baby. This life gave me a thread of hope to begin to heal.

I gave birth to a precious baby girl with blue eyes and dark hair, so tiny and so vulnerable. I named her Jennifer, and I knew she was a sacred gift to be loved and cherished. My daughter is wonderful, and she has touched many lives including my own. I am so thankful for giving birth to her; I have no regrets.(2)

(link)

That doesn't work for everyone and it certainly wouldn't work for a minor.

"Don’t make a noise or I’ll kill you." I lay terrified as he ripped off my clothes and raped me. As a slim sixteen-year-old, I was no match for him. He threatened to come after me if I told anyone, so I lay motionless in a cloud of pain and nausea as he disappeared into the night.

Our house was empty, and I rushed to cleanse myself of the horrible dirty feeling that clung to me. I threw away my torn clothes, immersed myself in a hot tub, and scrubbed till my skin ached. By the time Mom got home from work, I was huddled silently in bed. I didn’t dare tell anyone what happened.

The next morning I tried again to wash away the dirty feeling, but nothing worked. I lost my appetite, was haunted by nightmares, and couldn’t concentrate in school. I kept looking over my shoulder, certain he was coming back for me. Somehow I thought God must not care about me. Maybe He was even punishing me.

The thought of pregnancy hadn’t occurred to me at first, so for four months I denied the possibility. I insisted to myself that my queasiness was just a touch of the flu, and my missed periods were due to shock.

But a doctor’s exam finally erased all doubt. I cried all the way home from his office.

Though I could no longer hide that I was pregnant, I still didn’t tell anyone about the rape. Mom had been abandoned by my dad before I was born, and she worked hard to support us. She had no idea what I was really going through, and her words couldn’t comfort my hurts and fears. We’d never been very close, and I felt increasingly alone.

Surprisingly, the nightmares diminished as I felt the baby move. This new life brought the first glimmer of healing from the rape. As the months passed, I started to think this child would fill the void that had ached inside me for so long. I eagerly waited for the day when I’d hold my baby in my arms.

Kay Zibolsky

I fully accept and respect her testimony and support her decision as much as I respect the testimony of those people who take a fundamentally different view. That's the great joy in being pro-choice.

[afleitch]

^^^^

What I find so mind numbing about comments like that above, is the complete inability to understand what the 'choice' part of being pro-choice means; the choice to proceed, the choice to not proceed. I defend a woman's right to give birth to her rapists child as much as I defend her right not to. Maybe it sets ablaze the field of strawmen to accept that I don't know.

[afleitch]

I believe that at conception (sperm plus egg getting together) a human life, complete with an eternal soul, is created at that point.  It is not a fully developed human life, but neither is a newborn infant, for that matter.

Out of curiousity, given that something in the region of 30-40% of all fertilised eggs end in miscarriage, do you consider the womb to be as much a place of death as it is of life? Often these are chromosomal abnormalities that under no circumstances can ever actually develop into a human; how can it be a human life if it can never be human?