11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[Town Heretic]

Okay, I guess that's the magic wand I've been missing this whole time.

With all the gruesome consequences we remember. Charming time, that.

You don't make laws or fail to make laws because some people will harm themselves or others in violation of the law.

I see no problem with assisted suicide so you're probably asking the wrong guy.

I meant laws relating to homicide. The problem here is that you don't see the taking of human life as murder unless it meets an arbitrary litmus you've assigned to give that life dignity and right. And so my catch-all response on the point, preserving the one thing we can all agree upon against the chance of an unintended abrogation we have no right to impose.

I don't have to rework this response very much to use it my own advantage--shows how much unexpected overlap there is on this issue, for very different reasons.

It's how laws and prosecutions work. I think it's a case by case relating to mitigation, from state of mind and age to exceptions under prior bad acts, etc.

 

[Rusha]

Following your thinking to its logical concluson I don't see how else you could see the unborn fetus as anything less than an endangered potential murder victim--the rape victim made it clear she wishes to terminate the pregnancy. But you seem okay with letting her do as she pleases without any oversight. If she has a passport and catches a flight to Sweden, well...

Oh. So now I am EXPECTED to say "throw her in prison" so we can watch her? You want us to wish to put her under lock and key so ... you can accuse us of traumatizing her more?

See above. From your standpoint I don't see how you can't observe her twenty-four-seven.

Unless someone commits a crime or states they ARE GOING TO commit a crime, they cannot be observed.

Comparing her to her assailant is despicable, hands down.:nono:

Hurting someone because you are able or allowed is still hurting someone. Unless of course you wish to go on the record as stating that children who are abused and go on to abuse their own children should be held to a different standard. Is that what you are saying?

Her wishes and concerns are paramount. I support any decision she makes.

So you are basing her decision on who she is rather than on her actions. Got it.

Statistics do not bear this out at all.

How about the words of women (and men) who have gone through abortion?

http://www.abort73.com/testimony/

 

[Granite]

You don't make laws or fail to make laws because some people will harm themselves or others in violation of the law.

You have a real talent for bringing a chill into this conversation.

I meant laws relating to homicide. The problem here is that you don't see the taking of human life as murder unless it meets an arbitrary litmus you've assigned to give that life dignity and right.

As I've said before, our disagreement about personhood means we'll keep talking passed each other. Nothing either of us can do about that except (hopefully) acknowledge the difference.

It's how laws and prosecutions work. I think it's a case by case relating to mitigation, from state of mind and age to exceptions under prior bad acts, etc.

See, this right here raises a giant red flag if we're still talking about a hypothetical rape victim.

 

[Granite]

Oh. So now I am EXPECTED to say "throw her in prison" so we can watch her? You want us to wish to put her under lock and key so ... you can accuse us of traumatizing her more?

What I'm trying to do is figure out how you'd reasonably deal with a rape victim who's made her wish to end a pregnancy clear. You're basically okay with rolling the dice and letting her travel freely and do as she likes. Just strikes me as inconsistent.

Hurting someone because you are able or allowed is still hurting someone. Unless of course you wish to go on the record as stating that children who are abused and go on to abuse their own children should be held to a different standard. Is that what you are saying?

This has nothing to do at all with anything I said and I have no idea where or how you're coming up with these questions.

So you are basing her decision on who she is rather than on her actions. Got it.

How can I "base her decision" on anything? Makes no sense.

How about the words of women (and men) who have gone through abortion?

And how about actual statistics. I don't have much use for anecdotal "evidence."

http://www.bustle.com/articles/3254-study-women-actually-dont-regret-their-abortions

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/06/2418181/study-abortion-emotions/

Sorry to say it but the idea that the lion's share of women who abort regret their decision is simply a myth.

Even if you're correct you seem to be suggesting a choice that is regrettable is not a choice worth making. And that is not how life works. At all.

 

[Town Heretic]

You have a real talent for bringing a chill into this conversation.

I have a habit of answering attempts to distort the answer, via appeals to worst case scenarios and emotion driven advance, with reason. How you choose to describe the heart of that isn't reflective of my position as I've indicated in past responses. I have a great deal of compassion for people in horrible situations. It doesn't mean that I find in those situations justification for taking the life of a defenseless human being.

To my mind it is that act that is chilling.

As I've said before, our disagreement about personhood means we'll keep talking passed each other. Nothing either of us can do about that except (hopefully) acknowledge the difference.

Essentially.

See, this right here raises a giant red flag if we're still talking about a hypothetical rape victim.

By prior bad acts I was thinking about a woman having multiple abortions. As to rape, we are in the sense that with rape you have a much more compelling mitigating factor relating to state of mind/capacity. Age would similarly compel or should.

 

[Rusha]

What I'm trying to do is figure out how you'd reasonably deal with a rape victim who's made her wish to end a pregnancy clear. You're basically okay with rolling the dice and letting her travel freely and do as she likes. Just strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see how it's any more inconsistent than advising someone to not do something that is against the law and allowing them the freedom to follow or not follow your advice.

This has nothing to do at all with anything I said and I have no idea where or how you're coming up with these questions.

That was a response to

Comparing her to her assailant is despicable, hands down

How do you know the assailant wasn't beaten and sexually abused as a child? IF that were case, does it make his victim less innocent? Does it makes his actions less heinous?

Same thing with a child who grows up hungry and poor. IF they desperately rob a convenience store, panic and kill someone, does that mean their victim counts less than that of a serial killer?

Circumstantial abortion doesn't make a child less dead. It doesn't make the mother less responsible for the death of her child.

How can I "base her decision" on anything? Makes no sense.

Would you defend someone who gets pregnant via consent (and wants to abort) with the same vigor you are defending a woman who has been raped?

I would not. And I would still be against abortion because THE CHILD would still be innocent.

And how about actual statistics. I don't have much use for anecdotal "evidence."

http://www.bustle.com/articles/3254-study-women-actually-dont-regret-their-abortions

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/06/2418181/study-abortion-emotions/

Sorry to say it but the idea that the lion's share of women who abort regret their decision is simply a myth.

Even if you're correct you seem to be suggesting a choice that is regrettable is not a choice worth making. And that is not how life works. At all.

That isn't what I am suggesting. Frankly, I have no desire to see people who arbitrarily kill their children because they can get away with it feel good about it.

There is a superior option. Two live VS One dies

 

[Granite]

I don't see how it's any more inconsistent than advising someone to not do something that is against the law and allowing them the freedom to follow or not follow your advice.

If someone threatened to kill your six-year-old would you call the cops and if so what response would you expect?

If this rape victim returns from abroad no longer pregnant should she face legal consequences?

Would you defend someone who gets pregnant via consent (and wants to abort) with the same vigor you are defending a woman who has been raped?

No.

That isn't what I am suggesting. Frankly, I have no desire to see people who arbitrarily kill their children because they can get away with it feel good about it.

I'm not talking about an "arbitrary" decision but you seem to be drifting further and further from what this thread was supposed to be about.

 

[Granite]

I have a habit of answering attempts to distort the answer via appeals to worst case scenarios and emotion driven advance with reason.

Yes, Lord help us if we try to bring emotion into the picture. (Question: How is the rape victim not already dealing with what could be seen as a "worst case scenario"?)

I have a great deal of compassion for people in horrible situations. It doesn't mean that I find in those situations justification for taking the life of a defenseless human being.

A choice between a rape victim and a blastocyst is no real choice for me at all.

By prior bad acts I was thinking about a woman having multiple abortions.

And my point still stands. Under what circumstances? Ectopic pregnancy? D&C following a miscarriage? What about to prevent a complicated stillbirth? Purely elective abortions?

So now we're digging into the medical history of a rape victim and letting someone--you haven't really specified who--act as moral arbiter based on what they interpret as "bad behavior." That's two steps from slut shaming...if that.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, Lord help us if we try to bring emotion into the picture. (Question: How is the rape victim not already dealing with what could be seen as a "worst case scenario"?)

Lord help us if we let emotion rob us of reason. And given my argument applies to the broader issue, to answer the latter.

A choice between a rape victim and a blastocyst is no real choice for me at all.

Rather, the choice is between ending a human life or continuing it. The rape isn't a choice, it's a word you use to move the attention to a horrible act instead of how we address or compound it.

And my point still stands. Under what circumstances? Ectopic pregnancy? D&C following a miscarriage? What about to prevent a complicated stillbirth? Purely elective abortions?

I've been about as clear in my argument with Trad about this as I can be. If you missed it (and I miss any number of arguments I'm not involved in so I understand how easy that is to do) the only exception I can see at law is jeopardy of the mother's life under the doctrine of self defense.

So now we're digging into the medical history of a rape victim and letting someone--you haven't really specified who

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule, Granite. Habitual practice can be considered. And I think if we're looking at mitigation the conduct related to the issue is germane. It's an issue for the prosecutor in terms of the charge and the judge in terms of penalty relative to the charge.

 

[Granite]

Lord help us if we let emotion rob us of reason.

And vice versa forever and ever amen.

Rather, the choice is between ending a human life or continuing it.

This is the wicked tender mercy I referred to yesterday before the site took a dive. Or, maybe you're not as extreme as I think. Maybe if possible you'd offer her some manner of chemical abortifacient right there in the ER (or police station, or wherever) to prevent the situation from getting even worse.

If that's a measure you'd oppose hopefully you can appreciate why giving a rapist's sperm a fighting chance strikes me as utterly and completely horrifying.

There are even exceptions to the hearsay rule, Granite. Habitual practice can be considered. And I think if we're looking at mitigation the conduct related to the issue is germane. It's an issue for the prosecutor in terms of the charge and the judge in terms of penalty relative to the charge.

So it's outright slut shaming now. What is this, three strikes territory? We've gone from a tragedy and an intensely agonizing personal decision to a sprawling, legalistic, intrusive, twisted little all-American nightmare where we trot out a rape victim's sexual and medical history before deciding how (or if) we should punish her thanks to a gruesome misfortune.

Well done.

 

[Traditio]

General reply to TH, since earlier comments were deleted:

If you want to make the self-defense argument, then show me another case, other than that involving an unborn child, in which I can claim self defense because the person in question was simply existing/hanging out (read, not doing anything), and the circumstances surrounding that put me in serious apprehension of my life.

I'm not making the claim that, legally, malevolent intent is or should be necessary on the part of the person against whom I am defending myself. But some form of action, some kind of activity, on the part of the person against whom he defends himself, seems a sine qua non for any person reasonably to claim self defense.

Show me an analogous case, TH, in which the person against whom I defend myself does absolutely nothing, and yet I am still justified in intending to kill him. [Morally speaking, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine seem to say that only a public official can intend to kill anyone; private citizens cannot directly intend to kill, even in self defense.]

Conversely: if you insist on this line of reasoning, you must admit that any pregnant woman whatsoever, so long as she doesn't want the baby in her tummy, can act in self defense by means of abortion. Her bodily integrity, etc. is impaired by the very presence of the unborn child. Or, if you refuse to admit this, you at least must admit it for all victims of rape.

 

[Town Heretic]

And vice versa forever and ever amen.

Reason should never be the enemy of emotion unless the emotion is misplaced.

...hopefully you can appreciate why giving a rapist's sperm a fighting chance strikes me as utterly and completely horrifying.

I don't think the defense of life is extreme, though I find the justifications for taking life to be...and a child isn't sperm or egg any more than the contributor is defined by either. It is a new creation and one without the means to defend itself. So in a way it's very much in the position of the rape victim at the point of violation.

So it's outright slut shaming now

Only if you don't understand me. Rather, if you commit a crime and you've committed the same crime prior you will and should be treated differently than if this constituted a first offense.

What is this, three strikes territory?

No, that's a different animal. It's rooted in the principle that repeat offenders, who are disproportionately responsible for crime, should have hard mandate to escape from the problem of ridiculously light sentences.

We've gone to a tragedy and an intensely agonizing personal decision to a sprawling, legalistic, intrusive, twisted little all-American nightmare.

Well done.

Rather, we've gone from one tragedy to the prevention of a greater one.

 

[Granite]

I don't think the defense of life is extreme, though I find the justifications for taking life to be...and a child isn't sperm or egg any more than the contributor is defined by either. It is a new creation and one without the means to defend itself. So in a way it's very much in the position of the rape victim at the point of violation.

Handing a rape victim a morning after pill isn't a tragedy, and it isn't murder, and it's not the snuffing of a child. And only a truly, deeply warped sense of morality and compassion would ever misinterpret this situation. It's the same kind of moralizing that stands in the way of relieving pain via advances in stem cell research. The same kind of self-righteousness that opposes assisted suicide. The same kind of moralizing that implicitly puts a premium on pain, not relief.

Only if you don't understand me. Rather, if you commit a crime and you've committed the same crime prior you will and should be treated differently than if this constituted a first offense.

An ayatollah couldn't have put it better.

No, that's a different animal. It's rooted in the principle that repeat offenders, who are disproportionately responsible for crime, should have hard mandate to escape from the problem of ridiculously light sentences.

See above.

"How big a whore is she and when did she sleep with so and so"--such is the stuff of this brave new world of yours. Bravo.

 

[Town Heretic]

General reply to TH, since earlier comments were deleted:

If you want to make the self-defense argument, then show me another case, other than that involving an unborn child, in which I can claim self defense because the person in question was simply existing/hanging out (read, not doing anything)

Trad, it's an erroneous advance. You're misstating the first before asking for a similar application. If we're speaking to medical necessity/jeopardy of the mother's life your description of the state of the unborn isn't an accurate depiction. What you describe as hanging out is more closely akin to doing so by standing on her throat.

and the circumstances surrounding that put me in serious apprehension of my life.

Rather, the circumstance in that case is the existence of the unborn.

I'm not making the claim that, legally, malevolent intent is or should be necessary on the part of the person against whom I am defending myself.

Good. Doesn't alter your problems here, but good none the less.

But some form of action, some kind of activity, on the part of the person against whom he defends himself, seems a sine qua non for any person reasonably to claim self defense.

That's what you continue to miss. A blood clot is just sitting there too, blocking a vein. If the blood clot was sentient and didn't intend to do harm, was just hanging out there the decision to excise it and prevent an immanent death would be similarly justifiable.

Show me an analogous case, TH, in which the person against whom I defend myself does absolutely nothing, and yet I am still justified in intending to kill him.

The flaw is in your premise that the unborn in this case is doing nothing, supra.

Conversely: if you insist on this line of reasoning, you must admit that any pregnant woman whatsoever, so long as she doesn't want the baby in her tummy, can act in self defense by means of abortion.

Well, no, not if you understand what constitutes self defense and what doesn't. And if you don't (and your above indicates this is part of your problem) then you probably shouldn't hold forth on the point until you do.

Her bodily integrity, etc. is impaired by the very presence of the unborn child.

By way of example, supra. You just don't know what you're talking about, Trad. I told you that a while back. Either educate yourself or rely on someone who has.

Or, if you refuse to admit this, you at least must admit it for all victims of rape.

Doesn't follow at all.

 

[Traditio]

TH:

Are you familiar with the fat spelunker case?

 

[Town Heretic]

TH:

Are you familiar with the fat spelunker case?

Non analogous, but given the hole you've dug and your investment I can't say I'm surprised. Well, free advice period is over. From where I stand you're part of that mob you routinely ridicule, those with insufficient understanding and no real inclination to improve it.

:e4e:

 

[WizardofOz]

It doesn't appear that Ted Cruz would allow an 11-year-old rape victim to legally abort.

Cruz pledged last week to the extreme anti-choice Georgia Right to Life group that he would support a personhood amendment that would declare fertilized eggs to be human beings.

Ah election cycles

 

[WizardofOz]

Bumped this thread for [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION]

 

[patrick jane]

Bumped this thread for @patrick jane

You have child rape and incest on the brain today? You're sick

 

[WizardofOz]

You have child rape and incest on the brain today? You're sick

You're such a child, Patrick Jane. Children do get raped. Incest does happen. The world is sick sometimes. That doesn't mean that adults shouldn't tackle difficult topics.