I suppose she could be overruled if the pregnancy is clearly (in the opinion of a doctor and to the satisfaction of a judge) life-threatening and she was considered incompetent to make the decision to continue it.
I only speculate, of course. It could prove quite difficult to find a judge willing to order an involuntary abortion and a doctor willing to perform one.
Kind of a secondary question: Abortion has been the one area that they may deprive parents of their parental rights in regards to child safety. I could probably find a minimum of 100 cases where the state has failed children in regards to their safe keeping. These same instances are the same parents that don’t and would not deserve to keep parental rights at all. Why isn’t it more common for the State to deny parental rights?
Because denial of parental rights is something not done lightly? My son-in-law is involved with this very issue, and he is very busy. But it is not something which makes the news unless there is a screw-up somewhere in the system.
I can look up statistics, but I don’t know what you would consider sufficiently common.
Basically yes but there is a but…(see below)
Yes again but (again see below)
Below: We all know about situations of war, self defense, abortion, mercy killings, all is the destruction of a body. There is not a soul alive who’s body will not decay into death. Everybody dies. The question of morality to be comes from the motivation of the heart and not the act itself. Man usually judges by action, God however judges the heart (and if needed corrects the action for the good - but that’s beyond the scope here). As such, I believe destruction of a body is a act, but not judged as a ‘act’ but the reason behind the act, and it is the moral reason behind it that is what is important. God holds to this standard, and as we are created in God’s likeness we are to do likewise. We can kill a body, if our reason is moral, to the best of our understanding, then it is a moral act in the eyes of God. If our understanding is not correct God does the correction. So morality does play a part in it, but yes it is allowed IMHO (and call it choice)
I could not accept the premise that a fetus is not a person. To me it is a basic premise, and we have all been there (as a fetus), and I was alive then too. I also could not accept accepting the negative (a fetus is not a person) based on a unknown (actually we don’t know either way, so yes a fetus may very well be a person). As such trying to believe that a fetus is not a person is accepting self deception, and building a case for abortion based on deception. And why I originally could not be pro choice as I have seen it build on a faulty premise, which leads people (and particularly women) to have the accept a lie, which they know is a lie, as the truth, in order to have some peace of mind. To me this really hurts and lowers the status of women as they have and made to believe a lie. That is, to me, the morally indefensible part, taking away the choice of the woman of life or death and bring it to a level of removal of some unwanted cells.
Just to add to the above, in the case of abortion, the fetus/mother relationship is unique and the mother is the world to the fetus - and the fetus is not in this world (that we are in), but the one that ‘is’ the woman, and unlike other instances of ending a life, the woman’s body appears to me to be beyond the moral authority of worldly ruling powers to judge, and unlike the other instances of killings I mentioned, this is to me totally the woman’s decision by God’s design.
Again I feel there are moral instances where one can take a life and one must explain himself for his act, but in terms of abortion I don’t feel we have any moral right to interfere with her choice, and it is a insult to what God has made to do so.
Only if the premise that a fetus is a person is accepted, and many people don’t.
Religion is a personal preference. It cannot and should NEVER be above the law of the land.
My wife has a Masters in reproductive physiology, and she firmly believes that a fetus is not a person, and she knows more about it than either you or I. Saying pro-choice women lie to themselves about this is insulting.
Still, while you have the absolutely most bizarre argument for being pro-choice I’ve ever heard, I guess I shouldn’t complain.
This case proves that the Roman Catholic Church considers obtaining and performing an abortion on a nine year old girl pregnant with twins is wrong, but a stepfather having sex with and getting his 9 year old stepdaughter pregnant is okay.
Having been involved with groups on both sides of the issue and later followed-up with scriptural research of my own, my understanding remains that the Christian Bible actually has nothing specific to say about abortion. Part of this may be because the poets translating for King James washed away nuance that was previously there; OR it may be that zealots are reading in what was never there. Either way, the relatively modern versions in English are just not direct or specific enough about the matter.
I’m a bit confused by the original post. The original post asks about a 12-year-old and pregnancy. As much as it’s a hypothetical situation, this can hypothetically occur in precocious or misguided children – e.g. kids playing “show me” and going way too far with the game. The next paragraph makes a comment about a father and incest, seemingly as an afterthought. Is it an intrinsic element to the hypothetical we’re being given, or just a tangental observation? Almost all of the responses appear to assume incest is the cause of the hypothetical pregnancy, though the original poster seems a bit noncommital on the matter.
I submit to the forum that there are no elders of a twelve-year-old incest victim who have shown sufficiently sound judgement or supervisory skills to be allowed to weigh in on whether or not that twelve-year-old should end or endure the pregnancy. Similarly, I submit to the forum that there are no peers or juniors of a pregnant twelve-year-old who have developed enough intellect or maturity to properly consider the ramifications involved – even if the peer/junior is the other DNA-donor. Thus, the only entities qualified to determine the fate of the twelve-year-old and the zygote within her are the twelve-year-old, her legal and health advisors, the presiding judge, and a religious advisor (IF that twelve-year-old wishes to include one).
–G!
No abortion ISN’T murder as it is legal. This is where I and most of the religious right part, if you need to bring religion into an argument for a law, then odds are it’s a bad law.
Your standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable, may be different than mine, to force someone to continue a pregnancy in which they did not consent or were to young to consent, is unacceptable.
The way I look at this is, say you were knocked unconscious and taken to the hospital, after you woke up you found yourself hooked up to another person, who if they are disconnected from you would die, but in about 9 months that person could be safely disconnected from you, should you be FORCED to remain connected to this person even though you NEVER consented? No imagine that person was the reason you were unconscious as they assaulted you, using your logic you would be forced to remain connected, no matter what the risks are to you or what your wishes are.
[QUOTE=Grestarian;21174813
I’m a bit confused by the original post. The original post asks about a 12-year-old and pregnancy. As much as it’s a hypothetical situation, this can hypothetically occur in precocious or misguided children – e.g. kids playing “show me” and going way too far with the game. The next paragraph makes a comment about a father and incest, seemingly as an afterthought. Is it an intrinsic element to the hypothetical we’re being given, or just a tangental observation? Almost all of the responses appear to assume incest is the cause of the hypothetical pregnancy, though the original poster seems a bit noncommital on the matter.
I submit to the forum that there are no elders of a twelve-year-old incest victim who have shown sufficiently sound judgement or supervisory skills to be allowed to weigh in on whether or not that twelve-year-old should end or endure the pregnancy. Similarly, I submit to the forum that there are no peers or juniors of a pregnant twelve-year-old who have developed enough intellect or maturity to properly consider the ramifications involved – even if the peer/junior is the other DNA-donor. Thus, the only entities qualified to determine the fate of the twelve-year-old and the zygote within her are the twelve-year-old, her legal and health advisors, the presiding judge, and a religious advisor (IF that twelve-year-old wishes to include one).
–G![/QUOTE]
While I don’t believe 12-year-olds should be forced to bear children, your assertion that no 'elders" of a child incest victim have shown sound judgment or supervisory skills is just plain wrong. Non-incestuous parents are seldom negligent. Is a mom negligent because she leaves her daughter home with the girl’s father, a guy who’s never given anyone cause for suspicion? (Child predators are cagey that way.) I had a case once in which a girl, 13, was raped by her 16-year-old brother every morning after Mom left for work. He threatened to kill her if she told Mom, so she didn’t. She finally disclosed to a school counselor. Mom had no way of knowing what was going on. How was that mom negligent?
For the vast majority of parents, discovering their child has been raped and by a trusted family member causes shock and anguish. Very few need to add guilt to that mix.
That’s a fine anectdotal case for a counterargument to wiggle around my argument.
I was thinking last night that my post was too generalized, so I’ll add stronger specifics. Perhaps they’ll clarify my position; perhaps they’ll leave less generalization in which to wiggle.
[COLOR=Blue]I’m thinking that the father who was screwing his twelve-year-old shouldn’t be given custody of the resulting offspring. I’d be worried that he would do something similar with his child/grandchild. I’m thinking that a mother who allowed the father to rape/statutorily rape his daughter isn’t going to be protective enough of the daughter or grandchild, either. I’m thinking that a mother who wasn’t sufficiently engaged enough with the daughter/victim that she could confide in her about being raped isn’t likely to be available enough to keep the grandchild safe, either. Even in the case you’re citing, I’m thinking the 16-year-old father is too young to weigh in with a legal opinion (wouldn’t he have to be over 18?) and shouldn’t be around the resulting child anyway. I’m thinking that a father or brother (or cousin or whatever) who raped and impregnated a twelve-year-old should be in jail and, as an incarcerated person, won’t be in a very good position to provide daily supervision of his offspring.
I’m thinking that, within a simple hypothetical that the twelve-year-old was impregnated by another twelve-year-old, neither she nor her partner demonstrated the maturity or intellect to consider the ramifications and potential future consequences of their actions and I would not expect a sperm-donor who is younger than our hypothetical victim to be better-equipped for that mental challenge. If they are/were not mentally equipped to think that far, I don’t think they’re mentally-equipped to be in charge of the baby when it’s born.
Granted, we have an abundance of cases in which twelve-year-olds have raised families. They exist in history as well as in modern cultures beyond North America and Western Europe. However, our modern western cultures no longer consider young teen marriages to be a norm#; for various biological and social reasons such practices are no longer acceptable or advisable.
The pregnant kid because the drama is going to affect all facets of her being so she should be allowed to express her desire/opinion if she’s mentally capable of doing so; the others would be asked to weigh in with both the girl and society as a whole in mind – with expected biases based on their particular professions.
Lastly, because others have brought it up and argued both for and against it in this thread, I think The Bible is as relevant to this overall discussion as the Enuma Elish, the Mahabharata, and/or the Tao te Ching – in other words, not at all – not because I hate religion& but because I think a multicultural society@ should apply its laws and regulations evenly to all constituents with equal deference or indifference to the constituents’ religous preferences. That would mean either allowing each family to adhere to its own scripture – including prohibiting abortion if they follow the Christian Bible and stoning the (presumed) promiscuous girl to death if they follow the Wahhabi Koran – or developing a secular standard without influence from any particular religion to apply it to everyone within the jurisdiction.
—G!
*I note, as I have in many posts around this board, that modern psychologists understand that the brain does not normally develop such an ability to contemplate multiple ramifications and consequences and resist peer pressure until it is around 25 years old. That’s at least twice the age of our hypothetical mother-to-be.
#…to the extent that the minimum age for legal marriage is 18 (seventeen with parental approval) in most States of the USA.
&Yeah, I know: My reputation precedes me.
@…and, let’s face it, all societies are becoming increasingly multicultural.[/COLOR]
Everyone is making up incest-scenarios, but what should happen if it wasn’t incest but instead, some other older guy that isn’t part of the family and he statutorily raped her.
Maybe someone like a family friend, a school teacher, neighbor or even someone who is a stranger to the family and that only the girl knows.
Of course, he should go to prison, but the main focus isn’t about him.
No, it’s “a cluster of a few cells” and in no way equivalent to a conscious, thinking, feeling actual real-life human being.
Women should not be enslaved to the reproductive process just because of your or anyone else’s opinion.
A mother who ALLOWED the father to rape the daughter? Are you under the impression that good mothers know in advance that a father is going to rape his daughter? (And for the record, sex with a child aged 12 is never considered statutory rape.) What clues do you imagine there are? That the father fondles himself while watching Angelina Ballerina? Drools over the Baby Gap catalogue? Runs his hands up his daughter’s skirt while the mom placidly watches? If so, you’d undoubtedly change you mind once you learned more about it.
Or is it that you think the mother should be with that kid 24/7, eyeing everyone suspiciously?
Your claim that a daughter doesn’t disclose to a mother because the mother is “not sufficiently engaged” is also mistaken. Some kids (21%) DO tell someone immediately, but most don’t disclose for at least a year. Some never do. They’ve been threatened. Or they love their father and don’t want to get him in trouble. Or they worry the news will crush their mother. The last was true for me, though I was sexually assaulted by a stranger, not a relative, on my way home from school. I was very close to my mom, and she was very engaged with us kids. My mom was my rock. But I didn’t tell her because it would crush her, and I couldn’t handle her emotions on top of my own. She noticed I was quiet, but I tried to pass it off as teen moodiness. I only disclosed because I couldn’t figure out how to get to and from school safely. I viewed not telling as a shortcut to normalcy.
I’m strongly opposed to ANYONE forcing or pressuring a 12-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term. I’m also opposed to blaming the mother when it isn’t warranted. The two are not mutually exclusive
Hey, maybe the 12 year seduced the father, and the mother chose to ignore it. That’s how some people would have it happening. Of course, most of those people would fight against abortion saying “The baby didn’t do anything wrong.” And if the baby is born and it’s arranged for a nice gay or lesbian couple to adopt it “Gay parenting is chlld abuse.”
I don’t think your cite proves this.
I also don’t see anything to suggest that the church believed a stepfather impregnating his 9 year old stepdaughter is OK -
Which part of that leads you to conclude that the Church thinks it’s OK?
Regards,
Shodan
So what? People argue that the death penalty and hospitals removing life support against parents’ wishes like in the cases of Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard are murder too, but all are also legal. Most people throwing around the word murder mean in a moral sense, not a legal one.
That doesn’t make it a valid argument