12-year-old, forced to marry, dies in childbirth

User avatar
by
Published on September 15th, 2009, 6:44 am
Rift: News
  
I saw this story the other day. There are several things that bother me about this story. First, there's the obvious pedophile angle. We would call it pedophilia, or statutory rape... in Yemen, it's nothing much out of the ordinary.

But I recall many years ago, having a discussion about women's rights with a Muslim co-worker. I told him I thought it was awful, how in Islamic families, I hear that females are prevented from doing most of the things westerners consider normal, like driving cars, holding jobs, getting educations. He told me that the main goal of Muslim men was to protect women. I recall this, and think of the 3 days of horror and pain, preceded by months of pregnancy, for this poor girl. I can't help wondering why Muslims can't see the obvious contradiction here...
September 15th, 2009, 6:44 am
 
I don't think all Muslims adhere to this belief do they? Secondly, it was only within the last 100 years we've legally made similar practices in America legally taboo. Tons of American women were married by 14 "back in the day"... and even today it's practiced within many of our religious sects, both openly and secretly.
William Killick: You have a raindrop running down your cheek, just like a tear.
September 15th, 2009, 6:55 am
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9552
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
Liv wrote:I don't think all Muslims adhere to this belief do they?

Myself, I think it's a cultural thing, rather than a religion thing. But the fellow I talked with was from Pakistan... no telling how "protective" he was of his female family members. But I really don't know any American-born Muslims, so I couldn't say.
Secondly, it was only within the last 100 years we've legally made similar practices in America legally taboo. Tons of American women were married by 14 "back in the day"... and even today it's practiced within many of our religious sects, both openly and secretly.

I expect so. Still, it does far more harm to the kids than any possible "good." By that standard, it's a pretty rotten thing.
September 15th, 2009, 7:05 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8296
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
I agree, but I think we need to understand that many of the mistakes, and beliefs Muslims are currently making have been made by our religions, and by western countries. While it's important to shun these actions, I think at the current period in their culture it's understandably "normal".... sadly.
William Killick: You have a raindrop running down your cheek, just like a tear.
September 15th, 2009, 7:10 am
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9552
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
He was only following the guidance of his Holy book. Why do you hate Muslims so much?
Obviously you do not know what a hyperbolic chamber actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about BecauseHeLives, 2009 August 16
September 15th, 2009, 9:42 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8258
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
I can just about remember the outrage over Jerry Lee-Lewis on tour in England when it was discovered his third wife was only 13 (and his cousin). I was only five and thirteen sounded quite old to me at the time.
Obviously you do not know what a hyperbolic chamber actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about BecauseHeLives, 2009 August 16
September 15th, 2009, 9:49 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8258
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
Speaking of a Jerry Lewis... did you see this!!!

She walks the streets of New York, searching for a place to rest, homeless and destitute. But this is the last person you'd expect to be down and out.

Her name is Susan Lewis and she is believed to be the long-lost daughter of Jerry Lewis. She even has some DNA evidence to prove her biological link to the comic legend.

"You're washing up in public bathrooms, sleeping on benches here, you're hanging out in parks; people would be surprised to hear that you might actually be the daughter of Jerry Lewis," says INSIDE EDITION's Les Trent.

"Yeah, some people are surprised, but it could happen to anyone," says Lewis.

She spends her days at Grand Central Station where she blends in with the steady rush of commuters and catnaps on the public benches.

"When you look at your life here and you think about Jerry Lewis and the life he's probably living, it must be difficult to think about," says Trent.

"I feel like my father should at least want me to have a better life, or a little bit better," Lewis says.

INSIDE EDITION spent a night with Lewis, following her through the city streets. In Times Square one woman couldn’t help but notice her uncanny likeness to Jerry Lewis.

As the night wore on, Lewis went in search of somewhere to rest. She refuses to sleep in homeless shelters.

"It's not a good place to be, I'm better off on my own on the street," she says.

Instead she goes to an all-night diner, where the staff lets her take a quick nap.

By 1:30 a.m. she's at Penn Station, but the waiting room closes at 2 a.m. so she has to move on. She finds a bench on Broadway and stays there until dawn, and ultimately only gets a few hours of sleep.

It's a difficult, undignified existence for anyone, let alone a woman who could be the daughter of a Hollywood legend.

A man she believes would help her if he only knew.

"Would you reach out to him for help?" asks Trent.

"I always said that I'm not running after him for help, but I never said I would turn it down, because I'm not in the position to," she says.

INSIDE EDITION tried to contact Jerry Lewis, but got no response. A test of Susan's DNA against that of Lewis's son Gary showed an 88% probability that they are related.
William Killick: You have a raindrop running down your cheek, just like a tear.
September 15th, 2009, 4:35 pm
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9552
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
Funny thing is that Liv and I were talking about pain thresholds and childbirth today. I have made my way through it twice and I was in a completely different physical and mental state of mind than this child and it was almost intolerable. I cannot even imagine what this baby must have endured. While it is possible that these child brides may be more mature at this age and culture than in comparison to others there is no way that she can truly be prepared for his kind of experience at such a young age. She must have been so scared. Just the lack of proper medical care must have been even more a burden of fear for her. I suppose it is hard for us to understand how this could ever be allowed to happen because we have a different perspective. Growing up in a culture with no outside perpective allows this to continue. It would be hard to enforce laws that the people are not ready to accept. They don't see this as bad. Kind of makes me think of that Reba song "Fancy". Always makes me tear up.
"Are you disrespecting me and my family?"
September 15th, 2009, 8:25 pm
User avatar
shannon
 
Posts: 183
Joined: January 9th, 2007, 11:03 am
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I saw this story the other day. There are several things that bother me about this story. First, there's the obvious pedophile angle. We would call it pedophilia, or statutory rape... in Yemen, it's nothing much out of the ordinary.

But I recall many years ago, having a discussion about women's rights with a Muslim co-worker. I told him I thought it was awful, how in Islamic families, I hear that females are prevented from doing most of the things westerners consider normal, like driving cars, holding jobs, getting educations. He told me that the main goal of Muslim men was to protect women. I recall this, and think of the 3 days of horror and pain, preceded by months of pregnancy, for this poor girl. I can't help wondering why Muslims can't see the obvious contradiction here...

I don't understand this story. The article says she was granted a divorce shortly after the man raped and beat her. Where did she go after the divorce? Was it her parents who denied her medical care during the labor/delivery? Evidently somebody DID finally take her to a hospital because the article says she died in hospital. Obviously too late to save either her or the babyl.
November 8th, 2009, 3:40 pm
Questioner
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado
Her parents sold her to her rapist and then disowned her. In Yemen abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother. The problem is that the mother's death must be imminent and uncontrovertible, so in most cases the mother has to die to prove that she really was dying. Otherwise the doctor and surviving mother are subject to flogging and/or stoning

Rather like how some want America to become. The wonderful new health care plan has the same proviso - the life (not health) of the mother is the only criteria for which an abortion will be funded. Unless she's poor enough to be on Medicare, in a private plan, or can afford it.
Obviously you do not know what a hyperbolic chamber actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about BecauseHeLives, 2009 August 16
November 8th, 2009, 3:55 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8258
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
A Person wrote:....Rather like how some want America to become. The wonderful new health care plan has the same proviso - the life (not health) of the mother is the only criteria for which an abortion will be funded. Unless she's poor enough to be on Medicare, in a private plan, or can afford it.

I too am disappointed in that part of the new bill. However, it was a necessary compromise to get the bill through. I believe that if the democrats stay in power, it will be amended in a few years. Just getting the public option will save thousands and thousands of lives. The women needing abortions will be in no worse position than they are now, but women will have hope that eventually that restrictive clause will be overturned.
November 8th, 2009, 4:10 pm
Questioner
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado
Questioner wrote:
A Person wrote:....Rather like how some want America to become. The wonderful new health care plan has the same proviso - the life (not health) of the mother is the only criteria for which an abortion will be funded. Unless she's poor enough to be on Medicare, in a private plan, or can afford it.

I too am disappointed in that part of the new bill. However, it was a necessary compromise to get the bill through. I believe that if the democrats stay in power, it will be amended in a few years. Just getting the public option will save thousands and thousands of lives. The women needing abortions will be in no worse position than they are now, but women will have hope that eventually that restrictive clause will be overturned.


Save lives? You must be joking.

You are supporting the killing children.

It's not a joke or some game that we can play.

It's lives on the line, snuffed out for the selfish whims of society.

Read the facts my friend. Abortion kills. It can kill the mother. It kills the child. The mother never escapes unscathed. It harms them emotionally, physically, and perhaps even spiritually.

3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP):
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp


Over 90% said they weren't given enough information to make an informed choice.

Over 80% said it was very unlikely they would have aborted if they had not been so strongly encouraged to abort by others, including their abortion counselors.

83% said they would have carried to term if they had received support from boyfriends, families or other important people in their lives.*


http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... alth.shtml

Abortion is always results in death.
(Above statement edited. Last statement was false. It's a choice.)

It's evil, next step eugenics.

Image
Last edited by ecofox on December 19th, 2009, 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
December 18th, 2009, 5:14 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
Strange that you find the agonising death of a 12 year old girl in childbirth preferable to an abortion. Perhaps if you think of her as a very late term fetus you might find some compassion.
Obviously you do not know what a hyperbolic chamber actually is. That's ok. I'm used to you pretending to know what you are talking about BecauseHeLives, 2009 August 16
December 19th, 2009, 11:02 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8258
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
A Person wrote:Strange that you find the agonising death of a 12 year old girl in childbirth preferable to an abortion. Perhaps if you think of her as a very late term fetus you might find some compassion.

Well, a 12-year-old girl is only worth considering for her ability to incubate a fetus. It would be a mistake to keep her from her job as appointed by God.
:evil:
December 19th, 2009, 11:20 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8296
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
A Person wrote:Strange that you find the agonising death of a 12 year old girl in childbirth preferable to an abortion. Perhaps if you think of her as a very late term fetus you might find some compassion.


I feel abortion is only acceptable in a life or death situation and in that scenario the choice should be left to the mother.

Should she sacrifice her life for her child?

Or should she kill her child to have a chance to save her own?

Do you think that abortion would have made this young girls life any better had she survived?
She may have been being raped since she was as young as ten.

The thing is we must put an end to these evils.
We must battle the causes of these problems, rather than judge and condemn it's effects.

The causes are pedophilia.
Selfish desires.

Relativism.

Once everyone follows truth abortion will not longer be an issue.
December 19th, 2009, 12:51 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
A Person wrote:Strange that you find the agonising death of a 12 year old girl in childbirth preferable to an abortion. Perhaps if you think of her as a very late term fetus you might find some compassion.

Well, a 12-year-old girl is only worth considering for her ability to incubate a fetus. It would be a mistake to keep her from her job as appointed by God.
:evil:


I am sorry you feel that way.
December 19th, 2009, 12:53 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
Please tell me, how do you save lives by killing baby's?

Also you guys are using red herrings.

If you noticed in my argument I was not referring to the little girl but rather the preposterous idea that killing baby's save's lives.

Finally if you think I am getting emotional, this is because I have recently come from a class where my peers supported abortion and said "$500 for an abortion?! That's too much! I'm a just throw that bitch down the stairs or shoot him or something."
"It has no heart, it's not alive."
"A fetus is a parasite."

Etc.

You are heartless. If you support abortion, unless you have already been aborted.

You condemn others to a fate you yourself have not yet had the pleasure of experiencing.

We are talking about two lives.
One has no voice.

What give's you the right to determine whether that child lives or dies?
December 19th, 2009, 1:06 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
ecofox wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
A Person wrote:Strange that you find the agonising death of a 12 year old girl in childbirth preferable to an abortion. Perhaps if you think of her as a very late term fetus you might find some compassion.

Well, a 12-year-old girl is only worth considering for her ability to incubate a fetus. It would be a mistake to keep her from her job as appointed by God.
:evil:


I am sorry you feel that way.

That's how I see the direction YOUR statements are making. Should be apparent that those are not my views... I don't believe in God, and I certainly don't think that any female should be forced to reproduce against her will.
December 19th, 2009, 4:06 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8296
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:That's how I see the direction YOUR statements are making.


I don't see where you were able to make that leap in logic.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Should be apparent that those are not my views...


Really? They sure didn't sound like mine. Has to be somebody's.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I don't believe in God,


Then you believe in a lie.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:...and I certainly don't think that any female should be forced to reproduce against her will.


Rape = Bad
All rapist should be neutered like the dogs that they are.

If it is not a life or death situation why should you kill the child?

Why should you condemn the child to a fate you yourself are not willing to share?

How many people do yo see walking about saying "I was aborted. It was a fantastic experience!"

Zero!


So you guys are real brave and just and strong. That's right oppress the voiceless.
December 19th, 2009, 4:22 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
Finally check out your reactions.

12-year-old, forced to marry, dies in childbirth


Solution?

Kill the baby!

Abortion will make it better!

Has anyone said one word on how we should properly punish the pedophile who married her?

Nope.

Some crazy bias huh?
December 19th, 2009, 4:35 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
ecofox wrote:....Save lives? You must be joking. You are supporting the killing children.
It's not a joke or some game that we can play. It's lives on the line, snuffed out for the selfish whims of society.
Read the facts my friend. Abortion kills. It can kill the mother. It kills the child. The mother never escapes unscathed. It harms them emotionally, physically, and perhaps even spiritually.

Why don’t YOU read the facts, and look at some credible sources of information. Your antiabortion religious sites are not factual, they are highly political and contain MANY errors in fact. Obviously, you have not read my posts over the past year. Look them up and you will see there are a variety of situations in which a pregnancy goes terribly wrong and the only way to preserve the life (not health), LIFE of the mother is to abort the fetus before it is sufficiently mature to survive outside the womb. A partial list of those medical situations:
1. A diabetic mother begins having eclamptic seizures at 4 months gestation. You have 2 choices: Abort and the mother has a chance to survive. Continue the pregnancy and they BOTH die.

2. The mother's heart is found to be compromised during pregnancy and the extra demands on the mother's heart causes her to go into congestive heart failure

3. An infection develops in the amniotic sac prior to viability. Leave the pregnancy alone and the mother will become septic and both will die. Remove the fetus and amniotic sac and the mother might survive.

4. Breast cancer is discovered in the mother prior to the time the fetus is viable (rate = 1 case per 3000 pregnancies). The hormones of pregnancy spread breast cancer like wildfire and the treatments for breast cancer cannot be done while a woman is pregnant because they will cause anomolies in the newborn. If the woman opts to wait to have treatment until after the fetus is viable, the cancer will spread so fast she may not even make it to term. Of course, if she dies from the cancer, the fetus dies with her.

5. Cervical cancer is discovered during the pregnancy (rate= 1 case per 2200 pregnancies). The only treatment is removal of the cervix and usually the uterus and ovaries, which will cause massive hemorhage is the fetus is not removed first. Of course, if viability has been reached, a c-section can be performed first and then the hysterectomy. But if the woman opts to continue the pregnancy and leave the cancer untreated, there is a high likelihood that both will die.

6. Malignant melanoma (1 case per 1000 pregnancies). Can't be treated unless the fetus is aborted. Even treated many of these cancers end in death of the mother. Even a week delay in treatment greatly reduces the probability of survival.

7. Massive multiples. This used to be rare, but with so much fertility treatment going on, and some really “fly-by-night” doctors who (as we saw quite recently with Nadya Suleman’s octuplets) are willing to insert more than 3 embryos at one time. Nadya Suleman was actually able to carry them to viability at 30 weeks (10 weeks premature) but Nadya is a rare woman indeed—probably only one woman out of a million could carry octuplets to viability. The more typical picture once the number of fetuses grows beyond 2-3 is that the mother’s kidneys, liver, heart and lungs cannot handle the huge extra load, she becomes toxemic by the 4th month and either dies or has them all removed; and while sick indeed for awhile, usually recovers. Or, for a better outcome, the woman has all but 2 removed prior to the 3rd month (which I suspect you would view as an unnecessary abortion of 4 or 5 fetuses.)

Thesse are only some of the reasons abortion is necessary to save the mother. But you and your ill informed ilk never read credible medical information, all you seem to read is stuff that you KNOW will reinforce your ignorant prejudices.

exofox wrote:3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP):
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.

So? Cows have eyes, a spinal cord, a beating heart and a fully developed brain. So do chickens, pigs and fish. But unless you are a vegan, you contribute to the "murder" of millions and millions of those creatures every year.

References
Suleman Babies Obstetrician, Dr. Karen Maples: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/03/ma ... index.html
Maternal cancers warranting abortion to save the mother): Suzanne R Trupin, MD, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois College of Medicine-Champaign. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview
December 21st, 2009, 10:25 pm
Questioner
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado
None of these situations make any difference to these people, Questioner. Their attitude is clearly that women are to be "lovingly" kept and operated, not live lives of their own. What do they care about medical sciences and gray areas? THEY are the deciders, not some poor woman that they'll never meet, let alone face and say, "You don't deserve to live longer than the fetus inside you. No matter what is happening it is always wrong to abort."
December 21st, 2009, 11:01 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8296
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Questioner wrote:
ecofox wrote:....Save lives? You must be joking. You are supporting the killing children.
It's not a joke or some game that we can play. It's lives on the line, snuffed out for the selfish whims of society.
Read the facts my friend. Abortion kills. It can kill the mother. It kills the child. The mother never escapes unscathed. It harms them emotionally, physically, and perhaps even spiritually.

Why don’t YOU read the facts, and look at some credible sources of information. Your antiabortion religious sites are not factual, they are highly political and contain MANY errors in fact.


http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

Very religious? Really?

Questioner wrote:Obviously, you have not read my posts over the past year. Look them up and you will see there are a variety of situations in which a pregnancy goes terribly wrong and the only way to preserve the life (not health), LIFE of the mother is to abort the fetus before it is sufficiently mature to survive outside the womb...



Obviously, you have not read my posts in this form...

ecofox wrote:I feel abortion is only acceptable in a life or death situation and in that scenario the choice should be left to the mother.


Questioner wrote:7. Massive multiples. This used to be rare, but with so much fertility treatment going on, and some really “fly-by-night” doctors who (as we saw quite recently with Nadya Suleman’s octuplets) are willing to insert more than 3 embryos at one time. Nadya Suleman was actually able to carry them to viability at 30 weeks (10 weeks premature) but Nadya is a rare woman indeed—probably only one woman out of a million could carry octuplets to viability. The more typical picture once the number of fetuses grows beyond 2-3 is that the mother’s kidneys, liver, heart and lungs cannot handle the huge extra load, she becomes toxemic by the 4th month and either dies or has them all removed; and while sick indeed for awhile, usually recovers. Or, for a better outcome, the woman has all but 2 removed prior to the 3rd month (which I suspect you would view as an unnecessary abortion of 4 or 5 fetuses.)


How exactly does this support abortion?
First I implant embryos in me then I abort them?
Isn't that a little insane?

These are only some of the reasons abortion is necessary to save the mother. But you and your ill informed ilk never read credible medical information, all you seem to read is stuff that you KNOW will reinforce your ignorant prejudices.[/quote]

How am I prejudiced?
Pro-life not pro-death

I know I would not like to be aborted. Would you?

ecofox wrote:3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP):
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.


Questioner wrote:So? Cows have eyes, a spinal cord, a beating heart and a fully developed brain. So do chickens, pigs and fish. But unless you are a vegan, you contribute to the "murder" of millions and millions of those creatures every year.


Cows aren't humans. Cows are animals.

How many years can you get in jail for killing a cow? In USA.

So you support the killing of baby's no matter what situation?

Even if the parents know they can provide for it?
They just say. Ah. It's a mistake. Kill it.
December 22nd, 2009, 4:48 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:None of these situations make any difference to these people, Questioner. Their attitude is clearly that women are to be "lovingly" kept and operated, not live lives of their own. What do they care about medical sciences and gray areas? THEY are the deciders, not some poor woman that they'll never meet, let alone face and say, "You don't deserve to live longer than the fetus inside you. No matter what is happening it is always wrong to abort."


Did you read my posts?

ecofox wrote:I feel abortion is only acceptable in a life or death situation and in that scenario the choice should be left to the mother.


What gray area?
How do you define it?
December 22nd, 2009, 4:51 pm
User avatar
ecofox
 
Posts: 186
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 9:28 pm

  Follow Me
ecofox wrote:What gray area?
How do you define it?

First of all, perhaps we do agree on one thing: There are situations in which abortion is the only way to save the life of the mother, and I enumerated several of those in my earlier post. Do we agree that those situations are not grey areas and that both you and I agree that abortion is morally justified in those situations? I hope so.

I do have a question. Immediately after my content about the danger of high number multiple pregnancy, you wrote, "How exactly does this support abortion? First I implant embryos in me then I abort them? Isn't that a little insane?" Does this mean that when a woman is found to be pregnant with 4, 5, or 8 fetuses you believe it is wrong to abort all but 2? If that is your position, then your position by default is that it is better that all fetuses die rather than trying to save two. Because as I said earlier, Nadia is one in a million. By massive preponderance of evidence, when a woman is pregnant with more than two fetuses, the probability of losing all of them is significantly higher than the probability of carrying them all to term. In fact, less than 1 out of 1,000 women could successfully carry even 4 fetuses to term. Most typically, the woman miscarries all of them by 3 months, or gets so toxic that the choice is between death of the mother within a week or immediate evacuation of all fetuses. So do you consider it better to let all of them die rather than abort all but 2 of the fetuses?

Second, there are situations in which the physical life of the mother is not immediately threatened, but her health is at great risk. These may be considered grey areas by some people. Not by me. I believe a woman has a right to take whatever action is necessary, including abortion, to preserve her health. Here are a few of the medical situations in which continuing a pregnancy means that the mother's health will be seriously and permanently damaged if she continues the pregnancy:

HELLP Syndrome in first or second trimester leading to liver failure and acute renal failure.
(While it is true that liver and kidney transplants are possible ways to treat the mother who loses her liver or kidneys to this pregnancy complication, the fact is that any kind of organ transplant means immunosuppressive drugs for the rest of the woman’s life, and a very much shortened life for the woman.)

Partial molar pregnancy. In this complication, there is a defect of fertilization and along with a fetus there is a growth of a false embryo. The outcome is never good because the molar tissue will eventually engulf the fetus and kill it. However, if the woman does not miscarry, and the molar pregnancy is not removed (and removed completely), the molar pregnancy can behave like a malignancy and grow into a lethal cancer for the mother. However, removing the molar pregnancy while there is still a living fetus is in fact, an abortion. Would you refuse this woman an abortion?

These are just a couple of the complications of pregnancy which can lead to permanent liver or kidney failure for the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated. But as “A Person” said, you aren’t interested in the truth. You only care about pushing your anti-woman agenda. So I won’t bother to enumerate all the potential pregnancy complications that can leave the woman physically damaged for life, and often shorten her life significantly.

I suspect you don’t consider profound depression and suicidal ideation to be a reason for abortion. Some women do, in fact, get so depressed during pregnancy that they are at extremely high risk for suicide. It is not known if these women have an abnormal hormonal reaction to the hormones of pregnancy or if the pregnancy exacerbates a prior depressive illness. No insurance company is going to pay to hospitalize a woman for 4 or 5 months to prevent suicide during pregnancy, and without confinement to protect them, a high number will successfully commit suicide. So, this is I suppose what you mean by a grey area. I suspect you would not allow an abortion for this. You would rather take the chance that she won’t successfully kill herself during the pregnancy. But remember, if she does kill herself, the fetus dies anyway.
December 24th, 2009, 8:32 am
Questioner
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado

Return to News