Raped 10 year old forced to give birth

The Geezer · 11 May 2015 at 14:55

Stepfather arrested .......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...in-pregnant-10yearold-rape-case-10239112.html

however the girl is 5 months pregnant

dacads · 11 May 2015 at 15:10

disgusting

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 15:51

Tefal said:
nearly as bad as Ireland, except there they let the mother die.

No they don't. But lets not allow facts to get in the way of things.

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 15:53

Xordium said:
Just another indication of why religion is so outdated in the viewpoints it encourages. The Catholic stance on abortion is crazy. There is a direct and tangible risk to the girl at this age let alone the psychological harm it will cause her either way. It's a pretty bad situation all around.

Quicker humanity loses itself of these outdated religious concepts the better. If religion adapts to be humane then fair enough but to date we've not seen it with larges swathes or Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

Funnily enough, those countries with more restrictive abortion legislation have better health outcomes for mothers.

Interesting how many people on this thread are more "advanced" than the poor religious fools but think it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child.

This is a picture of Lucas Moore who was born prematurely at 23 weeks of development.

Here he is celebrating his first birthday.

Stolly · 11 May 2015 at 16:03

checjb said:
My wife went through pubery when she was 9. By 10 she was handing outgrown bras to her mum. Disturbingly, this is commonly seen to run in families and my daughter is now 9. *sob*

gah so not ready for my 9 year old to start this...i'd feel like i'm loosing my child

robgmun · 11 May 2015 at 17:20

That's chilling, i didn't know girls went into puberty that young, i always thought it was 12-13. I've also heard that it has a lot to do with diet (i.e hormones in meat) but i could be talking crap

Tefal · 11 May 2015 at 18:16

spudbynight said:
No they don't. But lets not allow facts to get in the way of things.

Savita Halappanava?

Xordium · 11 May 2015 at 22:01

spudbynight said:
Funnily enough, those countries with more restrictive abortion legislation have better health outcomes for mothers.

Proof please! Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated comment that means nothing. That's a very strong assertion too!

spudbynight said:
Interesting how many people on this thread are more "advanced" than the poor religious fools but think it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child.

Actually I think you need to think whether you mean 'morally' or actually 'ethically'.

Ethically it is wrong to kill any child (I personally don't buy the not-human/not-living etc arguments) whether born or not. That is the basic ethical principle of non-maleficence - "do not harm". But that principle can also be applied to the mother, future implications for the child, the child's family and society in general. Also you have to weigh the ethical principle of beneficence - "doing good" - and that is relevant to the mother's rights and health.

What that means is that there is no definitive answer and that every case has to be judged on its own merits to determine the total efficacy for all concerned.

spudbynight said:
This is a picture of Lucas Moore who was born prematurely at 23 weeks of development.

Nice appeal to emotion.

Shall we frame it by how many early pregnancies end that well without lifelong complications and at a massive expense. Again to be judged on a case by case basis.

I am not sure you've actually examined all the angles here.

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 22:25

Tefal said:
Savita Halappanava?

Savita's death was nothing to do with abortion. There was an inquest into her death. It was found the cause of death was sepsis. The hospital was criticised for appalling lapses in care including failure to take blood early enough to diagnose her. If they had given her antibiotics early enough it would have saved her life. An abortion would not have saved her life and there is no medical evidence for abortion having any therapeutic benefit to anyone.

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 22:39

Xordium said:
Proof please! Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated comment that means nothing. That's a very strong assertion too!

There have been lots of studies which have shown better maternal health outcomes in countries that restrict abortion. Here is a recent one for example. If you want more there are lots available online.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/maternal_health_is_better_where_abortion_is_restricted

Xordium said:
Actually I think you need to think whether you mean 'morally' or actually 'ethically'.

Ethically it is wrong to kill any child (I personally don't buy the not-human/not-living etc arguments) whether born or not. That is the basic ethical principle of non-maleficence - "do not harm". But that principle can also be applied to the mother, future implications for the child, the child's family and society in general. Also you have to weigh the ethical principle of beneficence - "doing good" - and that is relevant to the mother's rights and health.

What that means is that there is no definitive answer and that every case has to be judged on its own merits to determine the total efficacy for all concerned.

I mean moral NOT ethical. Abortion, the intentional ending of a unborn human life, is either moral or immoral.

Changes in law might change whether it is ethical or not, it doesn't change whether it is moral.

Xordium said:
Nice appeal to emotion.

Shall we frame it by how many early pregnancies end that well without lifelong complications and at a massive expense. Again to be judged on a case by case basis.

I am not sure you've actually examined all the angles here.

Believe me I have examined all the angles on this. Pro-life issues are very important to me. I have friends who are actively involved in pro-life charities and I support these myself.

The right to life isn't something which is judged on a case by case basis. There is also a huge difference between being unable to save someone, and taking proactive steps to end a life.

Those pictures were not an attempt to appeal to emotion, but an attempt to make people understand what was involved. The unborn child in this particular situation isn't guilty of anything. To abort her would be to end her life. I suggest people Google for themselves procedures are actually involved in abortions at 22 weeks.

OhEsEcks · 11 May 2015 at 22:40

I think telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and what's in her body is a whole lot worse than raping her. Telling a rape victim she can't have an abortion because some religious zealots sky fairy of choice said she couldn't is like raping her twice. How dare they.

OhEsEcks · 11 May 2015 at 22:44

spudbynight said:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/maternal_health_is_better_where_abortion_is_restricted

No bias and cherry picking from that site at all.

http://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals
http://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_partner_sites

LOLOLOL.

Back in your religious hole.

The Geezer · 11 May 2015 at 22:45

OhEsEcks said:
I think telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and what's in her body is a whole lot worse than raping her. Telling a rape victim she can't have an abortion because some religious zealots sky fairy of choice said she couldn't is like raping her twice. How dare they.

I wholeheartedly agree

Janesy B · 11 May 2015 at 22:50

spudbynight said:
Interesting how many people on this thread are more "advanced" than the poor religious fools but think it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child.

Yeah that kid is going to have a great life being a 'rape baby' born to a 10 year old mother. That's if it survives.

Xordium · 11 May 2015 at 23:17

spudbynight said:
There have been lots of studies which have shown better maternal health outcomes in countries that restrict abortion. Here is a recent one for example. If you want more there are lots available online.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/maternal_health_is_better_where_abortion_is_restricted

Right now that's an unbiased report isn't it ... :rolleyes:

How about a consensus view from a non-Catholic predominated Western country where there has been a real emancipation movement and women aren't treated as chattel?

spudbynight said:
I mean moral NOT ethical. Abortion, the intentional ending of a unborn human life, is either moral or immoral.

Changes in law might change whether it is ethical or not, it doesn't change whether it is moral.

No, you seem to be missing the point again. No-one in this thread has argued that it is morally correct to kill an unborn child they have argued it is, at times, ethically correct. You were challenging what other people have said not your personal conviction.

Unless you can point me to a post where someone has said that ..

spudbynight said:
Believe me I have examined all the angles on this. Pro-life issues are very important to me. I have friends who are actively involved in pro-life charities and I support these myself.

Prolonging life is important to me. It's why I went into the medical profession. But retaining life for the sake of it without assessing the quality of it is "morally" and "ethically" wrong. You can paint such things as black and white like some religious folks do but unfortunately life throws up shades of grey.

spudbynight said:
The right to life isn't something which is judged on a case by case basis. There is also a huge difference between being unable to save someone, and taking proactive steps to end a life.

As someone who has spent most of their working life working in the paediatric intensive care environment I am going to say that is rubbish. All life saving treatment and the removal of life sustaining care should be assessed on a case by case basis. That way people can talk about likely outcomes, parents and extended family members can have a discussion about what they would like to in line with what the medical profession can legally and practically do.

I think it is a good you are - prolife - life is worth fighting for but so is the quality of it and so are peoples choices. These are all "morally" right which is why we remove the examination from the personal "moral" field into the ethical field.

tbyeah · 11 May 2015 at 23:20

How the **** can anyone defend this!?!?

You're ****ed in the head, I don't care if that's an insult. It's intended as such.

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 23:20

Janesy B said:
Yeah that kid is going to have a great life being a 'rape baby' born to a 10 year old mother. That's if it survives.

So what kill the child?

You might be surprised at the amount of pro-life speakers who are the result of their mothers being raped.

spudbynight · 11 May 2015 at 23:21

Xordium said:
Right now that's an unbiased report isn't it ... How about a consensus view from a non-Catholic predominated Western country where there has been a real emancipation movement and women aren't treated as chattel?

I haven't mentioned religion. I have spoken about health outcomes. If you are going to display religious bigotry then I don't see any point in discussing this with you.

Xordium · 11 May 2015 at 23:22

spudbynight said:
So what kill the child?

You might be surprised at the amount of pro-life speakers who are the result of their mothers being raped.

How is that relevant you should argue the case on its merit with logic and thought not pander for acceptance with attempts to justify using the same logical fallacy you applied above.

Xordium · 11 May 2015 at 23:24

spudbynight said:
I haven't mentioned religion. I have spoken about health outcomes. If you are going to display religious bigotry then I don't see any point in discussing this with you.

Oh dear you've got your knickers in a twist haven't you ...

I mentioned religion BECAUSE YOU QUOTED A SOURCE SAMPLED IN A PREDOMINATELY CATHOLIC COUNTRY.