Triggering: Abortion???

[ThrashAttack]

I don't see how all that doesn't apply to an 18 year old girl

I was on about myself, not the girl in general

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by FlyingTrue

Just saw this on the front page of CNN's website. A new major controversy in Mexico right now relating to this argument. A ten-year-old girl was raped by her stepfather and is now 17.5 weeks pregnant as a result. What to do here?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americ...ion/index.html

Well just right off the bat she can't have an abortion because she is well past the limit where she can have one legally. Even if they wanted to it would have to be an illegal one. This is why we should have the death penalty in México again for rapists and kidnappers. Mexico is a country 90% religious, national level will be difficult to acceptance abortion, plus a 4 month pregnancy is already a baby.

[L'espoir]

Originally Posted by mexico

Well just right off the bat she can't have an abortion because she is well past the limit where she can have one legally. Even if they wanted to it would have to be an illegal one. This is why we should have the death penalty in México again for rapists and kidnappers. Mexico is a country 90% religious, national level will be difficult to acceptance abortion, plus a 4 month pregnancy is already a baby.

You're right, she can't have one but I think the point was more about the circumstances that she got pregnant, rather than that.

[ThrashAttack]

I was more shocked of how she got pregnent

[Stardaze]

Originally Posted by FlyingTrue

Just saw this on the front page of CNN's website. A new major controversy in Mexico right now relating to this argument. A ten-year-old girl was raped by her stepfather and is now 17.5 weeks pregnant as a result. What to do here?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americ...ion/index.html

As i have said before abortion is wrong to me, but there is NO way a 10 year old is going to know how to raise a child. And by her stepfather, ugh people make me sick. She probably doesn't even really understand what is happening. Sigh.. I also think it is SO dangerous for a 10 year old to have a child. Their body is not ready for that kind of thing. Stories like this are so sad.
Then again she can't legally have an abortion. She is too far in her pregnancy. I'm torn here. I don't know what to think.

[PhoenixAlive]

This is awful. A ten year old should never have to go through something like this, and her body is definitely not mature enough for childbirth.

What I would suggest in a case like this is that they wait until the baby is viable (23 weeks) and then perform a c-section and arrange for the baby to be adopted. That way both the child and the baby will survive.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by ThrashAttack

I was on about myself, not the girl in general

No, I know, I was just saying how don't all those problems apply to the girl you hypothetically got pregnant?

[.Brittany.]

Originally Posted by Angelina.

I 100% disagree with abortion.
If your mature enough to decide to have unprotected sex, then you can raise a child. Adoption- i do agree in, if you absolutely cannot rise the child.
I will never agree with killing in innocent baby. (even if it's not technically a baby yet)
It will/would be, so killing it will give it NO CHANCE at life. It's just not right to me.



I see it as murder, although many of you guys will not, it's just my opinion. [:

You need to weigh all sides of the option. If a younger kid, like 11 years old, gets raped.. and impregnated.. there is no way that the kid would be able to support a child, and they probably wouldn't want to keep a child that they didn't choose to have.

With that being said, It depends on the situation to me.. Yes it is murder, but still.

[Gixxers rock]

I guess I'm one of the "bad guys" haha.

Very easy for me, I'm never going to get pregnant so it's never going to be up to me.

[Stardaze]

Originally Posted by .Brittany.

You need to weigh all sides of the option. If a younger kid, like 11 years old, gets raped.. and impregnated.. there is no way that the kid would be able to support a child, and they probably wouldn't want to keep a child that they didn't choose to have.

With that being said, It depends on the situation to me.. Yes it is murder, but still.

Did you even read what i said here?

As i have said before abortion is wrong to me, but there is NO way a 10 year old is going to know how to raise a child. And by her stepfather, ugh people make me sick. She probably doesn't even really understand what is happening. Sigh.. I also think it is SO dangerous for a 10 year old to have a child. Their body is not ready for that kind of thing. Stories like this are so sad.
Then again she can't legally have an abortion. She is too far in her pregnancy. I'm torn here. I don't know what to think.

[.Brittany.]

Originally Posted by Angelina.

Did you even read what i said here?

Ahh, no sorry Angelina, I must have missed that one.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by FlyingTrue

Just saw this on the front page of CNN's website. A new major controversy in Mexico right now relating to this argument. A ten-year-old girl was raped by her stepfather and is now 17.5 weeks pregnant as a result. What to do here?

Man thats so awful, its so surprising how a 10 year olds body even accepted the sperm, and a bit surprising that she was even 'ready' to have a baby!
Man that stepfather is awful!

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by emma01

Man thats so awful, its so surprising how a 10 year olds body even accepted the sperm, and a bit surprising that she was even 'ready' to have a baby!
Man that stepfather is awful!

I'm sorry, what do you mean by 'accepted the sperm'?

This is exactly what I was talking about before. It is just horrible to say that a girl who didn't have any say in having sex has to go through this. Technically, her body might be able to give birth, but it would be incredibly physically and emotionally stressful for her. And this is exactly why abortions should be legal. If it means that stupid women who can't be bothered forcing their boyfriends to put on a condom are allowed to have them too, then what does it matter, as long as other poor girls don't have to go through something like this.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

This is awful. A ten year old should never have to go through something like this, and her body is definitely not mature enough for childbirth.

What I would suggest in a case like this is that they wait until the baby is viable (23 weeks) and then perform a c-section and arrange for the baby to be adopted. That way both the child and the baby will survive.

Seriously? Obviously this girl is fairly far along and is almost at 23 weeks, but would you suggest this for all ten year olds, if the pregnancy was discovered earlier?

A big argument against abortion is that it is your child and you love them. Well, what if your child was this 10 year old who got pregnant? Would you make them go through with the pregnancy?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Seriously? Obviously this girl is fairly far along and is almost at 23 weeks, but would you suggest this for all ten year olds, if the pregnancy was discovered earlier?

A big argument against abortion is that it is your child and you love them. Well, what if your child was this 10 year old who got pregnant? Would you make them go through with the pregnancy?

No, in my opinion, if the pregnancy was discovered much earlier on, an abortion could be performed and be considered medically necessary because the girl is so young and her body is not at all ready for the physical stress of pregnancy.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

No, in my opinion, if the pregnancy was discovered much earlier on, an abortion could be performed and be considered medically necessary because the girl is so young and her body is not at all ready for the physical stress of pregnancy.

Then at what age would you consider it no longer medically necessary? The risks associated with pregnancy and birth are much higher for all girls under the age of 20 than those older than that.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Then at what age would you consider it no longer medically necessary? The risks associated with pregnancy and birth are much higher for all girls under the age of 20 than those older than that.

The age of sexual consent. And I realize that the risks are higher for women under 20, however I am sure that they are much higher for 10 year-olds who have barely started puberty, than for 14-16 year-olds (I would prefer that the age of consent be raised to 16) whose bodies have already undergone more changes to be ready for pregnancy and childbirth (which is in essence all that puberty is)

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

The age of sexual consent. And I realize that the risks are higher for women under 20, however I am sure that they are much higher for 10 year-olds who have barely started puberty, than for 14-16 year-olds (I would prefer that the age of consent be raised to 16) whose bodies have already undergone more changes to be ready for pregnancy and childbirth (which is in essence all that puberty is)

Fair enough. Though I have trouble with the concept that a 16 year old's body is more capable to carry a baby than a 15 years and 11 month old (age of consent is 16 here). Some places, though, the age of consent is 18. Would you consider it okay for a 17 year old to have an abortion in those states/countries?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Fair enough. Though I have trouble with the concept that a 16 year old's body is more capable to carry a baby than a 15 years and 11 month old (age of consent is 16 here). Some places, though, the age of consent is 18. Would you consider it okay for a 17 year old to have an abortion in those states/countries?

I agree, its ridiculous to assume that a 15 year and 11 month old is less capable to carry a baby than a 16 year old. But with these sorts of things you have to draw the line somewhere.

My idea is that if the government deems anyone younger than 18 too young to have sex, then by extension they are too young to carry a baby. By the same logic, anyone who is old enough to legally have sex is old enough to carry a baby until it is viable and can survive on its own. That is why I believe the age of consent should be 16. Because any woman who has sex has the chance of becoming pregnant, and in my opinion, anyone younger than 16 is at severe risk in pregnancy.

[Pelios]

The state health secretary, Juan Carlos Azueta, argues that the child can no longer be subjected to an abortion cases involving risks to life, and the mother agrees.

Having an abortion may cause more damage to her than not having one at this point.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by mexico

Having an abortion may cause more damage to her than not having one at this point.

Is that actually true though? In a lot of places, I believe it's legal to have an abortion prior to 20/22 weeks, so I would assume that abortion would be reasonably safe up to that point. And it just doesn't make logical sense that an abortion would be more dangerous than going through labour. I assume that the people saying that abortion would cause more damage are the ones who were against abortion in the first place and are now trying to quieten down the activists and come across as the "caring" ones. It's wrong, and I hate the fact that people are arguing that this is God's work. If you believe in God, how could you possibly think he is malicious enough to make a ten year old girl go through pregnancy?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Is that actually true though? In a lot of places, I believe it's legal to have an abortion prior to 20/22 weeks, so I would assume that abortion would be reasonably safe up to that point. And it just doesn't make logical sense that an abortion would be more dangerous than going through labour. I assume that the people saying that abortion would cause more damage are the ones who were against abortion in the first place and are now trying to quieten down the activists and come across as the "caring" ones. It's wrong, and I hate the fact that people are arguing that this is God's work. If you believe in God, how could you possibly think he is malicious enough to make a ten year old girl go through pregnancy?

I've looked up the procedures for abortion, and they all seem very invasive, after the 7 week mark. I'm not sure if the procedure would risk the life of the mother at 17 weeks, but I know that usually she would have to wait a week or more for an appointment... Again, I would prefer that at this point she wait just a few more weeks until the baby is viable and can be removed without loss of life to either of them.


This information may be triggering.

http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): between 13 to 24 weeks after LMP

This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. At this point in pregnancy, the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting numerous thin rods made of seaweed a day or two before the abortion. Once the cervix is stretched open the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus' skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X): from 20 weeks after LMP to full-term

These procedures typically take place over three days, use local anesthesia, and are associated with increased risk to life and health of the mother. On the first day, under ultrasound guidance, the fetal heart is injected with a medication that stops the heart and causes the fetus to die. Also over the first two days, the cervix is gradually stretched open using laminaria. On the third day, the amniotic sac is burst and drained. The remainder of the procedure is similar to the D&E procedure described earlier.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

[/color]Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): between 13 to 24 weeks after LMP

This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. At this point in pregnancy, the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting numerous thin rods made of seaweed a day or two before the abortion. Once the cervix is stretched open the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus' skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue.

For a 10 year old girl though, the fetus would be much smaller than normal even at almost 18 weeks (I'm assuming). Wouldn't it be possible that they might be able to use the procedure for those under 13 weeks?

I do agree with your idea about waiting until the baby is viable, as long as it doesn't pose any significant health and mental risks for the girl to wait that long. The doctors say that she is healthy, but I can't imagine that she is actually coping with this. Are they actually considering that option though or are they planning on waiting for her to actually give birth? Or at least go into labour and then give her a C-section.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

For a 10 year old girl though, the fetus would be much smaller than normal even at almost 18 weeks (I'm assuming). Wouldn't it be possible that they might be able to use the procedure for those under 13 weeks?

No, that doesn't really make sense. The baby is going to be the size of a normal baby regardless of the age of the mother. Babies' size is dependent on the parents' genes, and what nutrients or toxins a mother intakes while pregnant, not the age of the mother.

[occcoolboy]

well there ae many reasons and opinions about abortion. some women dont really want a child or else if they are still in high school. you have your opinion and your mom has her own opinion. i wish i can help you feel better but you cant really come back through time to stop all of this from happening. im sorry about the death (or murder) of your brother. feel better

[ThrashAttack]

Is anyone here also shocked by how that girl got pregnent?

[emma01]

Originally Posted by occcoolboy

well there ae many reasons and opinions about abortion. some women dont really want a child or else if they are still in high school. you have your opinion and your mom has her own opinion. i wish i can help you feel better but you cant really come back through time to stop all of this from happening. im sorry about the death (or murder) of your brother. feel better

Sorry, Im not following?

My niece is 10 almost 11 and she started her period the end of last year. I worry constantly about her getting pregnant either by rape/molestation or by meeting some little boy and the two of them doing something stupid. I know that both her parents are against abortion but I think if this happened they would be all for it.

I am sorry but a 10 year old should not be forced to have a baby. Even if this little girl were not raped. If she met some 11 or 12 year old boy and the two of them ended up having 'consensual' sex I cannot see forcing the child to have the baby.

Here is my question though; at what age would it be alright for a young girl to have a baby if she ended up having consensual sex with someone? 12, 13, 14, 15? TBH we can argue that an older child should know more about sex than a younger child but that really is not always the case. My niece for example knows that in order for someone to have a baby they have to have sex. She has also learned what sex is. Whereas my friends niece who is 12 has yet to really grasp that fact. She is waay to sheltered. Should she be forced to have a baby? IDK. I think that this is why things like that are tricky because everyone's circumstances are different.

Another example of this; my aunt was 14 and she never really grasped the concept of sex = a baby. Her maturity lever or whatever couldn't get over that. She only really figured it out because of some stuff that ended up happening to her.

I mean, I would like to think that today kids are more knowledgeable on things like this but you really would be surprised and how many people are ignorant or what not.

I think that for a lot of young woman they have a hard time understanding the fact that sex=pregnancy. They might have the general concept but they are too much into the idea that it could never happen to them. They are too self centered to see the whole picture. But that is not their fault because teenage years are when kids go back to the 'egocentric' stage.

I think I am ranting and not making much sense. But I guess my point is is how do we make laws on something with such a broad range of outcomes.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ~Jenna~

I am sorry but a 10 year old should not be forced to have a baby. Even if this little girl were not raped. If she met some 11 or 12 year old boy and the two of them ended up having 'consensual' sex I cannot see forcing the child to have the baby.

There is no such thing as consensual sex at such a young age. The legal age of consent ranges from 14-18 in most countries.

Originally Posted by ~Jenna~

Here is my question though; at what age would it be alright for a young girl to have a baby if she ended up having consensual sex with someone? 12, 13, 14, 15?

My answer would be whatever the legal age of consent is in the country that she lives. The government needs to take into consideration that if it is legal for a girl to have sex, there is a possibility of her getting pregnant. So, in my opinion, the legal age should be 16. Prior to this, I believe that it would be in a girl's legal right to have an abortion, as pregnancy would pose a significant risk to her physical health.

Originally Posted by ~Jenna~

I think that for a lot of young woman they have a hard time understanding the fact that sex=pregnancy. They might have the general concept but they are too much into the idea that it could never happen to them. They are too self centered to see the whole picture. But that is not their fault because teenage years are when kids go back to the 'egocentric' stage.

Of course it is their fault. If a girl is not mature enough to realize the possibility of pregnancy from sex, they are definitely not mature enough to be having sex in the first place. I don't know many girls in this day and age who don't have the internet or the resources to research a little about sex and pregnancy. If they don't do this before having sex, then they are really not mature enough to have sex.

Originally Posted by ~Jenna~

I think I am ranting and not making much sense. But I guess my point is is how do we make laws on something with such a broad range of outcomes.

Very, very easily. If there is a severe medical risk to the mother (this includes prior existing, or worsening depression and suicidal thoughts caused by the pregnancy) then she has the right to save her life by ending the fetus's.

Just as someone is allowed to kill in self defense, a mother would be able to terminate her pregnancy if it was a legitimate risk to her life.

If the risk to the mother's life doesn't exist, she must legally go through with the pregnancy.

My criteria for abortion would be:

-15 years old or less

-Medically necessary abortion

-Rape victim (only if found to be suicidal due to the pregnancy)

-found to be suicidal due to the pregnancy (without rape)

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Of course it is their fault. If a girl is not mature enough to realize the possibility of pregnancy from sex, they are definitely not mature enough to be having sex in the first place. I don't know many girls in this day and age who don't have the internet or the resources to research a little about sex and pregnancy. If they don't do this before having sex, then they are really not mature enough to have sex.

If a girl doesn't understand the possibilities of pregnancy from sex, then yes, she isn't mature enough to be having it. But she wouldn't know that. Why would a girl go and look up sex/pregnancy on the internet if they didn't know that there was anything to look up?

For instance, a 12 year old boy accidently walks in on his parents/older brother/sister/whoever having sex. Or he finds porn on an older sibling's computer. He goes over to his friend's house (a girl who is his age). He says "hey, I saw this thing on my brother's computer last night. Want to try it?" And there you go. How is that their fault?

There are plenty of schools and parents who only teach abstinence. It's possible that they never mention the consequences of sex. Girls rely on their friends for information. And there are heaps of kids out there who think withdrawal is an appropriate method of birthcontrol. Or that you can't get pregnant on your first time. Or that you can't get pregnant if you are on your period. To us, those things are ridiculous and we know it. But some girls have no reason, that they can see, to doubt that information. Why would they look it up?

Very, very easily. If there is a severe medical risk to the mother (this includes prior existing, or worsening depression and suicidal thoughts caused by the pregnancy) then she has the right to save her life by ending the fetus's.

Just as someone is allowed to kill in self defense, a mother would be able to terminate her pregnancy if it was a legitimate risk to her life.

If the risk to the mother's life doesn't exist, she must legally go through with the pregnancy.

My criteria for abortion would be:

-15 years old or less

-Medically necessary abortion

-Rape victim (only if found to be suicidal due to the pregnancy)

-found to be suicidal due to the pregnancy (without rape)

Why let it get to the point where the mother is suicidal?

Also, I don't see how making someone go through with a pregnancy is a good idea. Even if it's their own fault for not using protection.

Firstly, there is always the fact that women will go and get illegal abortions and we know how risky they are. That's exactly what happens when abortion is made illegal and no matter what moral disagreements you have with it, they don't stand up against the fact that women would be dying or suffering other serious health problems because of it.

Secondly, if you make a woman go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, what is the likelihood that she is going to take care of herself? If the woman doesn't care about the baby and is just carrying it because she has to, what is going to make her stop smoking or drinking or taking drugs? Then you end up with a severely disabled baby that you have to try and adopt out. It's just not going to work.

I agree with ShimmeringFairie. If they are not mature enough they are not going to make mature decisions and in essence that is what I was trying to point out. Sometimes people have sex and they are not mature enough to make that decision and they do. They made a mistake, a very very stupid mistake.

I am going to mention this but I seriously don't know where I can find more information on it. I read it in a book and also heard it mentioned on 20/20 or something. But a study was done and it proved that the 'full concept' of sex was not something a 16 year old or even really a 17 year old could understand. Their brains are not mature enough. They gave information about what they meant by them not being mature enough but I seriously only read it is passing. I don't even like bringing it up because I cannot actually support it with quotes but my point of bringing it up is yes young girls and boys are having sex but they are not actually mature enough to do so. It is, at least in society today, part of their living and learning process that everyone goes through.


I know 10 or 11 or 12 is not an age to give consent but that was why I put it in ' '. Because there are 14 year old girls that get pregnant and people say 'they gave consent they need to deal with it.' I feel they are too young. Truthfully I think till a child reaches 18 they really are too young to give consent.

As for age of consent it is different all over I found this link http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm (I don't know how accurate it is but I am sure it is okay). Here is shows how varying the age of consent is some places it is 16 some places it is 18. And you can see a bias when it comes to boy/girls. Girls need to be at an older age to give consent and in some places boys can be as young as 12. Why is that? Neither person at that age can give consent.

And, so if some consent ages are 18 does that mean in some states/countries abortion should be legal for the age group of 17 and younger? And then in other countries/states abortion is open to 16 and young etc? I think that is what makes it hard there are no right or wrong when it comes to this subject. There truly is no easy way for people to make laws regarding it.

Because in the end these laws are going to exclude some group that has suffered from the pregnancy. Or what not.

Edit: Laws of consent don't seem to mean much in places, at least america, unless the person is 23 and the other person is 16 or whatever. Besides that no one gets in trouble for having sex before the age of consent. A 16 year old girl and a 16 year old boy won't get in trouble for having sex so what is the point of age of consent? To make laws for sex offenders and what not.

Maybe if kids realized there was an age of consent for sex. Were educated on it all stuff like this would not be prominent. Ignorance, in my opinion, feeds into the early sex age for kids. And maybe if there was more education we would notice a decline in teen pregnancies and abortion. At my high school we had health class we did one weeks worth of learning about sex and we had someone from planned parenthood come out. This is not enough and this is the not the right age to start but parents view sex as 'taboo'. Two kids in my high school sex class got to skip class the days we learned about sex because there parents did not want them too. They got to miss class with the teachers knowledge and everything. There were also a handful of kids (might have been more but these were the only ones I had heard of) that got to waive this class completely because of the talk of sex, pregnancy, STD's, etc. I really think if there was less ignorance and less secrecy on the subject of sex it could hep and it should start at an earlier age.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Is that actually true though? In a lot of places, I believe it's legal to have an abortion prior to 20/22 weeks, so I would assume that abortion would be reasonably safe up to that point. And it just doesn't make logical sense that an abortion would be more dangerous than going through labour. I assume that the people saying that abortion would cause more damage are the ones who were against abortion in the first place and are now trying to quieten down the activists and come across as the "caring" ones. It's wrong, and I hate the fact that people are arguing that this is God's work. If you believe in God, how could you possibly think he is malicious enough to make a ten year old girl go through pregnancy?

Of course it's true do you think I just quoted myself on that. It was on the news here in Mexico, the doctor who said that is not even religious, no one brought up the religious point in this. Even though I would say that letting the little girl go by without doing nothing about it until now is very irresponsible from the mother. She did admit she knew about this abuse long before things got out of control.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

If a girl doesn't understand the possibilities of pregnancy from sex, then yes, she isn't mature enough to be having it. But she wouldn't know that. Why would a girl go and look up sex/pregnancy on the internet if they didn't know that there was anything to look up?

For instance, a 12 year old boy accidently walks in on his parents/older brother/sister/whoever having sex. Or he finds porn on an older sibling's computer. He goes over to his friend's house (a girl who is his age). He says "hey, I saw this thing on my brother's computer last night. Want to try it?" And there you go. How is that their fault?

There are plenty of schools and parents who only teach abstinence. It's possible that they never mention the consequences of sex. Girls rely on their friends for information. And there are heaps of kids out there who think withdrawal is an appropriate method of birthcontrol. Or that you can't get pregnant on your first time. Or that you can't get pregnant if you are on your period. To us, those things are ridiculous and we know it. But some girls have no reason, that they can see, to doubt that information. Why would they look it up?

Fair enough, but I don't really see how this is relevent to the abortion debate as I have already stated that I condone abortion in girls 15 and younger, and I have never seen a high school that did not have a sexual education course.

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Why let it get to the point where the mother is suicidal?

I have already explained this... What is it that you don't understand?

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Also, I don't see how making someone go through with a pregnancy is a good idea. Even if it's their own fault for not using protection.

Firstly, there is always the fact that women will go and get illegal abortions and we know how risky they are. That's exactly what happens when abortion is made illegal and no matter what moral disagreements you have with it, they don't stand up against the fact that women would be dying or suffering other serious health problems because of it.

Secondly, if you make a woman go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, what is the likelihood that she is going to take care of herself? If the woman doesn't care about the baby and is just carrying it because she has to, what is going to make her stop smoking or drinking or taking drugs? Then you end up with a severely disabled baby that you have to try and adopt out. It's just not going to work.

If women are so unstable that they will get illegal abortions, they should be in therapy. Women who are at legitimate risk from their pregnancies would not face this issue anyways. And at least this way, fewer people would die than with abortions being legal.

And also, pregnancies are all medically monitored. If a woman is seen be on drugs by her obstetrician and doesn't quit, she can be institutionalized for the remainder of her pregnancy to ensure her health and the baby's. There are many countries where abortion is not legal. It seems to work there.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

If women are so unstable that they will get illegal abortions, they should be in therapy. Women who are at legitimate risk from their pregnancies would not face this issue anyways. And at least this way, fewer people would die than with abortions being legal.

And also, pregnancies are all medically monitored. If a woman is seen be on drugs by her obstetrician and doesn't quit, she can be institutionalized for the remainder of her pregnancy to ensure her health and the baby's. There are many countries where abortion is not legal. It seems to work there.

It very much doesn't work in countries where it is illegal. 10,000 (some have put it at 20,000) women per year die from illegal, unsafe abortions in Nigeria (I believe that the number was similar in the UK before it was legalised too - at least wikipedia tells me so - at the very least it was high as that was the main cause of its legality) and 48% of all the abortions worldwide were unsafe abortions in 2003.

[emma01]

[color="DarkOrchid"]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

There is no such thing as consensual sex at such a young age. The legal age of consent ranges from 14-18 in most countries.

Actually yes there is, well here in NZ the age of consent is 16, but it is only counted as rape if someone aged 16 or over has sex with someone under 16. There is no law stating two 12 year olds cant have sex. That is perfectly legal. Not that i agree with it, but that is just how it is here. As long as both are under 16 it is okay.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

-Rape victim (only if found to be suicidal due to the pregnancy)

So if someone get's raped, but is not suicidal, they have to carry this baby for 9 months, everyday being reminded of the rape attack. I disagree with this completely! Not all rape victims are suicidal, but it does not mean they should be helped and supported any less, and they certainly shouldn't have to carry the baby. They got raped, which is illegal, how they mentally deal with it (suicidal or not) is up to them, but they should be allowed to abort the baby.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by mexico

Of course it's true do you think I just quoted myself on that. It was on the news here in Mexico, the doctor who said that is not even religious, no one brought up the religious point in this. Even though I would say that letting the little girl go by without doing nothing about it until now is very irresponsible from the mother. She did admit she knew about this abuse long before things got out of control.

Obviously I'm not accusing you of lying. I was referring to whether or not it is actually true that it would be more dangerous for her to have an abortion now. I was wondering if you had any medical proof to back up the claim made by others. You said that the state health secretary brought up the point, not a doctor, and you said that the mother agrees, and I don't see how the mother is in a position to corroborate that. And you brought up the religious point earlier. The majority of Mexico is religious, which is most of the reason why abortion is illegal in almost all cases, and why this little girl can't have one. Nobody is going to get up and say "actually, she could have an abortion now, but we don't want her to, so we're just saying that it's too dangerous", but that doesn't mean that they aren't thinking that.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Obviously I'm not accusing you of lying. I was referring to whether or not it is actually true that it would be more dangerous for her to have an abortion now. I was wondering if you had any medical proof to back up the claim made by others. You said that the state health secretary brought up the point, not a doctor, and you said that the mother agrees, and I don't see how the mother is in a position to corroborate that. And you brought up the religious point earlier. The majority of Mexico is religious, which is most of the reason why abortion is illegal in almost all cases, and why this little girl can't have one. Nobody is going to get up and say "actually, she could have an abortion now, but we don't want her to, so we're just saying that it's too dangerous", but that doesn't mean that they aren't thinking that.

Even if she could still have one it is illegal to have one at 17+ weeks in Mexico so obviously the state health secretary will not go on and say she can. I’m just saying what I heard on the news, a very well know doctor checked her and concluded that so the state health secretary announced it to the media.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Jack

It very much doesn't work in countries where it is illegal. 10,000 (some have put it at 20,000) women per year die from illegal, unsafe abortions in Nigeria (I believe that the number was similar in the UK before it was legalised too - at least wikipedia tells me so - at the very least it was high as that was the main cause of its legality) and 48% of all the abortions worldwide were unsafe abortions in 2003.

That doesn't sound bad to me at all... I would call that a success, to be honest. I much prefer those numbers to the 1.3 million abortions performed in the US in 2009. So, my statement still stands. It works fine in countries where it is illegal.

Originally Posted by emma01

So if someone get's raped, but is not suicidal, they have to carry this baby for 9 months, everyday being reminded of the rape attack. I disagree with this completely! Not all rape victims are suicidal, but it does not mean they should be helped and supported any less, and they certainly shouldn't have to carry the baby. They got raped, which is illegal, how they mentally deal with it (suicidal or not) is up to them, but they should be allowed to abort the baby.

No they shouldn't get helped or supported any less. They should be in therapy and being helped by professionals to deal with what has happened to them and be able to live life after this traumatic event. However the way they "mentally deal with it" should not be up to them. Killing is inexcusable unless it is self-defense, and mental trauma can be dealt with by therapy, without needlessly killing a fetus.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

That doesn't sound bad to me at all... I would call that a success, to be honest. I much prefer those numbers to the 1.3 million abortions performed in the US in 2009. So, my statement still stands. It works fine in countries where it is illegal.

Yes, but 20/10,000 is simply the number who die. The number who seriously injure themselves or survive unscathed is going to be much higher (610,000 to be exact). Considering Nigeria's population is 1/3rd the size of the USA it's pretty much the same rate per capita. I restate: Not working.

It is especially not working when you consider that it's 100,000 less members of society sacrificed per year in a losing battle to protect a potential member of society. In the end all that happens is both the foetus and the mother end up dieing and you have two deaths instead of one.

If you look at rates accross the world there is very little difference in abortion rates in the ones where it is legal and where it is illegal over-all. In fact the three countries with the lowest rates (Netherlands, Germany and Tunisia in that order) all allow abortion.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Jack

Yes, but 20/10,000 is simply the number who die. The number who seriously injure themselves or survive unscathed is going to be much higher (610,000 to be exact). Considering Nigeria's population is 1/3rd the size of the USA it's pretty much the same rate per capita. I restate: Not working.

I don't care about the ones who survive. But the numbers who die are a lot less than the number of legal abortions every year.

42 million abortions each year (including unsafe abortions)

68,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions.


Wikipedia states that:

"The World Health Organization (WHO) reports each year nearly42 million women faced with an unintended pregnancy have an abortion [3]; and according to the 2007 estimates conducted collaboratively by the WHO and Guttmacher Institute, 20 million unsafe abortions take place each year, most in countries where abortion is illegal [4]. According to WHO and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion."

[Jack]

The ones who survive have still had abortions too and thus raise the rate. Hence you should care in relation to this argument. You should also care in relation to the long term injuries that people who have unsafe abortions can have, only 25% escape unscathed (as per WHO, 2004). Which then puts financial stress on the state to provide medical care and makes them a less productive member of society.

My point being that the abortion rate in places where it is legal comparative to where it is illegal is much the same. You can continue to say that the actual numbers of legal abortions are higher than illegal ones but that's simply because (a) it is legal in more countries (Almost 2/3 of the world’s women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained on request for a broad range of social, economic or personal reasons - if we're using wikipedia as a source) and (b) the countries in which it is legal tend to have higher populations. (Eg China)

If the rates in places where it is illegal closely mirror the rates where it is legal then it doesn't work. By making it illegal you would not save anymore lives, you'd simply drive it underground.

As 48% (as per The Lancet, 2007) of all abortions worldwide are unsafe abortions it's obvious it needs to be legal as illegality makes no difference.

From the Guttmacher institute:

An examination of statistical trends reveals that the legal status of abortion in a country is not strongly correlated with the rate at which it occurs. Indeed, in many countries where the procedure is illegal, women obtain abortions at very high rates. Similarly, in some countries where abortion is legal and very widely accessible, abortion rates are low.

Clearly, factors other than legality are at play here. The primary factor is the rate at which women experience unintended pregnancies. Some women who have an unintended pregnancy will seek an abortion regardless of its legal status—even if they have to jeopardize their lives by undergoing an unsafe, illegal procedure. Thus, while there may be little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

Similarly legal and safe abortion results in a VERY significant drop in maternal mortality rates. For example lets look at Romania, this graph shows how much it effects legality has on maternal death: