|
A Romanian government committee has decided to allow a pregnant 11-year-old who was raped by her teenage uncle to have an abortion, a government spokesman said Friday.
The girl is 21 weeks pregnant — too far along to have an abortion in Romania, where the limit is 14 weeks unless the pregnancy poses problems for the mother’s health, said the spokesman.
The girl’s parents had said they would take their daughter to Britain for an abortion if the committee did not allow her to have one in Romania. Abortions are legal in Britain up to 24 weeks…
Church groups have opposed an abortion for the girl, the government spokesman said. The Romanian Orthodox Church has urged the girl to keep the baby, and has said it will take care of the baby if the family wants to give it up for adoption, he said.
Still, she’s lucky not to live in South Dakota. Here’s their law as interpreted by a leading member of the SD State Senate:
“A real-life description [of a candidate for abortion] to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
Some of these creeps haven’t yet made it out of the 14th Century.
So according to the Supreme Court, you can’t kill the rapist, but you can kill his child for his crime.
At that point in time, it is not a child.
And Im really curious as to why the South Dakota senator requires that the person be religios in order to have an abortion. Is he implying that being religious would make her even more messed up psychologically?
@#1: That’s so F’d up, isn’t it? Now, can they at least lock up child rapists for life? I’d hate to have to pay to keep those demons alive in jail but I think it would be a better alternative than to let them roam among us.
Once a child rapist, always a child rapist. And please don’t give me this crap that someone that rapes a helpless child, specially under 10, can be rehabilitated. They need to be castrated at the very least in my opinion. Or deported into the middle of Basra so they can try that shit over there and see how they’re dealt with.
I think that idiots that use the bible as an excuse to make abortion illegal despite the fact that abortion was practiced in biblical times and is not mentioned as a sin in the bible and despite the fact that the bible has no qualms about mentioning any other aspect of sex and reproduction, should be required to learn the real biblical response to rape. It’s quite a beautiful little passage in the bible. In fact it’s so beautiful it makes me want to physically puke. Here’s what the bible has to say on rape.
Deuteronomy 22:22-29:
Yecch!! The bible is an awful source of morals. A woman must marry her rapist to maintain her own standing in the community??!!?
Anyway, back to the topic of the abortion.
For an eleven year old to carry to term would be a very high risk pregnancy indeed. Would anyone really take a high risk of invoking the death penalty on the girl for being a rape victim? What about the poor child of this incest who, if born, is likely to have health problems from the consanguinity of the parents (not to mention the not fully developed state of the mother)? What monster would make this child carry to term?
Exactly #1
They’re compounding one error with another.
What about the creep who did this to her?? ehhh????
And since when did Scott become a theologian?
#2 wrote: “At that point in time, it is not a child.”
Really, here’s a story of a child born at 21 weeks that survived.
http://tinyurl.com/4g884k
While I agree that there is some point it time when that isn’t a child in there during pregnancy, the hard part is figuring out when that point is.
I have a hard time with the state making that decision but I also have a problem with some scared, teenager who wasn’t smart enough to not get pregnant in the first place making it.
#6 – Stinker,
What about the creep who did this to her?? ehhh????
Good question!!
And since when did Scott become a theologian?
As an antitheist, I find it helps to know some choice bits of the bible. Check my blog. I’ve got several posts with lots of bible quotes. In fact, reading parts of the bible is a big part of what made me an antitheist. The other bit is the amount of murder and genocide committed in the name of the bible. But, we don’t need to go there for this.
I’ve also been on a bible rant on my blog due to a particularly religious person who’s been visiting … a lot … so had it on my mind at the moment.
@#4,8: It is not always theologists who change abortion rights. It is good that the old Romanian regime is dead. If still in place, even as a child and even as a rape victim she couldn’t have had abortion under the communist rule. Obviously they could care less for the religion. Intent was to have as many subjects as possible. Hence no birth control or abortion in any way shape or form “for the benefit of the country”. Result: famous Romanian orphanages…
At 21 weeks it IS a child.
There are brain waves, hence sentient life.
Cursor_
#10–Cursor==don’t like the subject?==change the language to fit your argument. In fact you might even be winning thru this back-door BushCo technique.
Child legally and thru most of history was defined as a young human being between birth and puberty; a boy or girl. But I have to admit that Merriam/Webster now includes an unborn person. Give corruption long enough time, and it will get into reputable reference works.
Well, the “law” still makes the distinction between child and fetus if popular culture is “floundering.”
Same I guess with sentinent being? Are those the same brain waves you get from sunflowers?????
So–the Supreme Court dealt well with the issue==no need to argue about when life starts and all that. Just decide what rights attach to what stages of development.
The morality of course lies not so much in whatever position you choose for yourself, but rather in who chooses, meaning what you are willing to force on others. All in a world that is already overpopulated—but don’t let reality interfere with dogma.
What the hell. She was eleven years old. Why should she be required to give birth? I am sure there were a number of political issues involved in why it took so long to terminate her pregnancy (i.e. why it took longer than 14 weeks).
There was no miracle in this case. It’s not about two wrongs. He raped her and got her pregnant. It was a physical body reaction. There was no deep meaning.
Can someone please explain to me while she should be required to give birth to the child?
#12 – “Give corruption long enough time, and it will get into reputable reference works.”
Like the word marriage?
#13–Jeff==tell me you haven’t heard that “the child” is the only innocent party in the picture? The rapist is evil and should burn in hell, the mother should have been safely in church praying, and the baby is totally innocent as soon as it gets baptised. Funny how the whole “baby is innocent” argument somehow gets excepted for rape which has absolutely nothing to do with the innocense of the baby and all about the emotions of the mother.
#14–patrick==exactly!
#8 – Scottie
Wow, you have religious people on your blog? I’m surprised they haven’t been exterminated!
Gonna have to check that out again.
Bobbo you may be right somewhat on the definition of child, but throughout most of human history and to this day, most pregnant women don’t say my fetus, they say my child or my baby.