That’s why a judge is necessary - to determine if it is a case where the best interests of the child over-ride the wishes/beliefs of her parents.
It certainly struck me as odd factoid to drop in the middle of a hypothetical, since I was not aware of any medical issue that would render someone “too young” for abortion and indeed I thought it was clearly established it was possible to be “too young” for a safe pregnancy.
But the OP clearly has an agenda based on how he perceives the legal and ethical issues, not on anything related to science or medicine, and that’s fine but it would have been nice to establish that up front.
No agenda here. I was trying to remain neutral by preventing both sides of the issue. SD seems to be very staunchly pro-choice. People ITT got very emotional over a hypothetical scenario that has probably happened a lot throughout human history.
I was trying to remain neutral by preventing both sides of the issue. Interesting typo. 
Of course it’s happened many times. That’s well-documented. If it’s historical, it’s not merely hypothetical. But why would you think people wouldn’t get passionate about the issues behind a “hypothetical” scenario that involves child rape, pregnancy, and abortion?
I hope you understand what pro-choice means. It does not mean someone is for abortion in all circumstances. It is possible for a person to be personally opposed to abortion and yet feel that others with different views should have free access to it. John Kerry was like that, I believe.
If someone has religious objections fine for them, but unless you can present your god as evidence, stay the fuck away from those of different or no religion.
In any decent family the child would be told that a surgical procedure, having nothing to do with murder, was done to protect her life and health.
Andy any God-botherer assaulting a child with accusations of murder would suffer serious repercussions. Because that would be the real evil here.
Women and girls have died from pregnancy and giving birth throughout human history. I’m still think it’s a bad thing.
Well, the rather glaring factual error in the hypothetical prevents me from investing too heavily in it. The realistic (and more common than it should be) scenario of a raped and impregnated preteen certainly can and should generate concern, though I don’t think “very emotional” is an accurate descriptor of the reaction to the scenario, but rather your artificial and unnecessary limitation on the scenario.
As for human history, childbirth was pretty commonly fatal for both mother and newborn so dismissing the options offered by modern medicine is especially misplaced.
Safer for who, abortion generally has about a 50% mortality rate.
The Bible does say that the life is in the breath and also in the blood. The ‘life’ is the accountable part.
I don’t know about girls being forced to keep their babies, but male victims of statutory rape are routinely forced to pay child support to their rapists. (I’m not sure whether this applies to forcible rape as well.) I’m not sure if they start collecting it when the victim turns 18, or when they first start earning money or what, but in the Olivas case below he was held liable for accumulated support going back to the child’s birth.
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj [PDF]
You’re saying HALF of all women who have abortions die?! Nope. Please show a cite. According to a 2012 study published by the NCIB PubMed,
Unless, of course, you were referring to the mortality rate for the embryo, in which case, it’s about 100%.
But I’d like to ask you when one child’s life becomes less worthy than another child’s life. Pregnancy at age 12 is very dangerous. If the child-mother’s life is in danger, does that of the the embryo/fetus/baby always come first?
Let’s see a cite for that.
(Unless you’re talking about the fetus/embryo, and in which case, just come right out and say it instead of playing games.)
What defines who/what is a human being?
That might be discussion for another thread, don’tcha think?
If all you wanted to really talk about was arguments for/against abortion, why didn’t you just come out and say that in your OP?
:dubious:
We all agree that birth does - though in past years, children weren’t really considered to be human beings until they could be shown to survive outside the womb, which is why babies weren’t named immediately.
Before birth, it is a matter of definition and debate. So let’s not through women and doctors in jail for disagreeing with some religion or other. That sound reasonable?
Would you happen to have an opinion on the OP and/or the question you just raised?
Embryos and fetuses are not children. They are potential children.
In this particular circumstance, that of a pregnant woman? The pregnant woman.
He IS the OP of this thread.
And I’m asking if the Original Poster has an opinion about his Original Post.