Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes

[Samm]

@LucyLou

A C-section is major surgery that takes a grown woman weeks to recover from and affects her childbirth options for the rest of her life.

But let’s do it on an 11 year old child who has also suffered violent rape from a grown man.

When does the nightmare end for her?

Never. Nothing will ever make her whole again. The only life that can be unscathed here is that of her unborn baby.

[Nemesis]

@Samm

@CaughtInTheMiddle

A little girl being raped and being forced to carry the rapist’s baby to term is about the most personal thing I can think of.

More personal than having ones body ripped apart while alive so that the pieces will fit through a suction tube?

Okay Samm, you go and tell the parents and the child that they have to go through with this pregnancy, explain abortion in the terms you use and lets see what additional horrors can be inflicted on this child.

[Candyman]

Might as well write her off then. 11 years old and of no value. I’m sure she’ll be happy to hear that.

[Samm]

@Nemesis

@wiley8425

Of course not. Not yet.

For anyone in the medical profession, including pharmacy techs, deny treatment/medication because of “religious beliefs” then they shouldn’t be in a profession of helping others.

It always starts with “there ought to be a law.”

I am confused now. Thats the whole point of this OP - we are complaining that there should not be a law.

Maybe you are, but the complaint of the OP is that the law should have an exception for raped 11 yr-olds (specifically an exception for victims of rape and inscest,) not that there should not be a law.

[Samm]

@Nemesis

Okay Samm, you go and tell the parents and the child that they have to go through with this pregnancy, explain abortion in the terms you use and lets see what additional horrors can be inflicted on this child.

That is not what you said that I commented on. You said you could not think of anything more personal. I gave you an example of something far more personal.

My position here has been crystal clear. This situation has no good resolution. Either outcome is both tragic and immoral.

[Samm]

@wiley8425

Or maybe we should force the idiots who are writing these laws out of office so they can’t write any more.

You have that option in each election. Go for it.

[Samm]

@party-free

Forced sterilization is a big government slippery slope we do NOT want to start.

Amazing people are actually advocating for/supporting it here.

Castration as a punishment is not done to prevent pregnancy, it is done to prevent rape.

[party-free]

That’s grotesque. People are not animals. Lock them up. It’s a simple solution.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

No… not really.

The answer is of course no, because the baby is a baby outside of the womb and the law and most moral philosophies are pretty clear.

And the law and moral philosophy of that law is clear in this case too. The only difference between the law that says a born baby has a fundamental right to life and the right to life extended to an unborn baby with a heartbeat by the Ohio law, is one of location.

[Samm]

@party-free

That’s grotesque. People are not animals. Lock them up. It’s a simple solution.

That’s beside the point. I was simply clearing up your misconception as to the purpose of castrating rapists.

[Samm]

@calirepub

@Samm

@calirepub

@thinkingman

@calirepub

@Konssurvative1

A 6 to 8 lb full term fetus needs space. That 6 to 8 lb fetus is going to find the space regardless. Which if her body cannot accommodate can cause damage to internal organs. Vital organs. How do you not understand that?

Forcing an 11 year old to go through that is the most immoral thing I can think of. I don’t care if you’re a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, whatever. It is wrong to force a child to give birth.

worse than killing an innocent life?

Yes. Only a monster would force an 11 year old to give birth in my opinion.

I agree. And only a monster would kill a defenseless baby just because it’s father was a rapist. Monsters are everywhere.

11 year old children should not be giving birth to children of their own. This is clearly a case where the health/life of the mother needs to be taken into account. The fact that it’s a rape baby just makes it all the more obvious that there is no moral way that anyone should force her to carry to term.

I don’t disagree. Both “solutions” are terrible.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

No… not really.

The answer is of course no, because the baby is a baby outside of the womb and the law and most moral philosophies are pretty clear.

And the law and moral philosophy of that law is clear in this case too. The only difference between the law that says a born baby has a fundamental right to life and the right to life extended to an unborn baby with a heartbeat by the Ohio law, is one of location.

Here is the thing.

At six weeks, there isn’t a heart that has been developed to be beating… so to say that the line is a beating heart, then this bill misses the mark.

What they are doing is a defacto ban on abortion in order to challenge Roe V Wade because they feel that the court will strike it down.

As far as the morality of forcing an eleven year old child to carry to term the product of her being raped, that is a morality that has been radicalized outside of reality.

[Samm]

That is besides the point. The only difference between the newborn left in the kitchen and a developing life 7 months younger still in the womb is their location. Both are living humans. All this law does is to codify their right to life at an earlier stage.

By the way, as I read it, the law says “when the heartbeat is detected” which occurs at about six weeks. The determination is heartbeat, not time.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

That is besides the point. The only difference between the newborn left in the kitchen and a developing life 7 months younger still in the womb is their location. Both are living humans. All this law does is to codify their right to life at an earlier stage.

By the way, as I read it, the law says “when the heartbeat is detected” which occurs at about six weeks. The determination is heartbeat, not time.

It is a radicalized version of morality that equates a living breathing baby to be equal to an embryo that is six weeks along in it’s development.

It is the size of a pea and has none of the developmental characteristics yet that a baby has. Most importantly it doesn’t have a heart yet so it is impossible for there to be a heartbeat.

What is being characterized as a heartbeat is electrical activity along a thickening yolk sac… but “Thickening Yolk Sac” bill just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

[Samm]

No, it’s a biological fact. Morality doesn’t enter into it.

[bluedogdem]

Sharia law has nothing on the people who would make a 11 year old keep a rape baby

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

No, it’s a biological fact. Morality doesn’t enter into it.

Of course morality enters into.

This is a moral argument between the rights of a fetus and the rights of a woman to her own autonomy.

That is the central debate in all of this.

In the case of an eleven year old forced to carry to term the product of her rape, the argument is that she has zero right to her own autonomy.

None, zip, nada.

That is horrific.

[thinkingman]

@bluedogdem

Sharia law has nothing on the people who would make a 11 year old keep a rape baby

how would you compare sharia to what the left does to babies?

[bluedogdem]

@thinkingman

@bluedogdem

Sharia law has nothing on the people who would make a 11 year old keep a rape baby

how would you compare sharia to what the left does to babies?

Hmmm let’s see trying to force your religion on people is a start

[Paul_Thomson]

Not a fully formed human. Correct. A partly formed human.