Lets see anti-abortionists argue against this one

[grandpa]

Of course, we should all get together and sing a
rousing chorus of Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred"!
Oh, I understand it too, but I'm rational, unlike the
overwhelming majority of anti-abortionists.

They are also overwhelmingly religious, and think abortion is just an example of irreligious immorality.

But give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land:
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal
operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the
idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided,
of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really
seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little
for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is
inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's
eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is
responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been
charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's
ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education,
and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hopes of reward after death."
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science

Rationalists do not require God, or even majority opinion, to make personal decisions about abortion or anything else.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

But since the situation already says that the 9-year
old isn't physically mature enough to carry the fetus to
term, it's still going to be 2 deaths.
So do you want it to be one death with
an abortion, or 2 deaths to make a ridiculous point?

The only thing I'd add: the decision to have an abortion shouldn't be in his hands.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

The only thing I'd add: the decision to have an abortion shouldn't be in his hands.

Of course not. If the fetus isn't in his body, it's none of his damn business.

[Praxius]

So I have a right to kill you and take your liver if I need a new one?

You can try.

I saw nothing in the article to suggest this.

Common sense dictates this... a 9 year old female body might be able to handle one baby.... but do you think it physically can handle two at once?

What about the developmental demand on her own body and resources?

Tell you what.... you try it out first and tell me how it goes.

Which is an opinion not shared by anti-abortionists.

Just goes to show how moral they truly are huh?

No pro lifer argues that killing the baby and the mother is better than saving one of them. The argument, and even this is only from the most extreme anti-abortionists, is that in saving the mother's life, it is not acceptable to sacrifice the life of another innocent person with their entire life ahead of them.

Their entire life ahead of them is mere speculation..... they can end up still born or die very shortly afterwards..... and yet that's still fine when it comes to risking the life of someone who's already proven they are capable of having a future.

It's not the mother's foetus either. Following their logic that a foetus is already a human being, it deserves legal protections from being murdered by its parents. You can say it's no one else's business, but you wouldn't be saying that if a mother murdered her three year old.

Your logic remains flawed.

The three year old is already breathing, thinking, moving, and interacting all on it's own independance, as well is using it's own blood supply.

While the fetus is still attached to the mother, it is still using her oxygen, her blood, her energy..... therefore, it's still a part of her..... not an individual.

Rip that fetus out of the body and it'll die, because it is not a complete human, therefore it shouldn't be given human rights anymore then a liver should be given human rights.

Just because it looks like a human, doesn't make it so and if it can not survive on its body functions, then it's not technically a human being.... it's in development.... which is why it's called a fetus to begin with.

I'm afraid the above is all perfectly logical, reasonable and correct if you accept the premise that a foetus is equivalent to a developed human being. If you want to refute an anti-abortion stance, you have to refute that premise. It's the only way.

It's not logical or reasonable to accept a fetus as some equivilant to a "Developed human being" because it's not fully developed in the first place..... it's developing.

Toast isn't toast until you toast it.... before that, it's just a slice of bread.

A fetus isn't a fully developed human being until it's fully developed.

[The Bacon Guy]

You can try.

But I don't have a legal right, and I doubt you support granting me one.

Common sense dictates this... a 9 year old female body might be able to handle one baby.... but do you think it physically can handle two at once?

They don't hand out medical degrees based on common sense.

Just goes to show how moral they truly are huh?

Depends whether you accept their premise.

Their entire life ahead of them is mere speculation..... they can end up still born or die very shortly afterwards.....

So could the mother.

Your logic remains flawed.

The three year old is already breathing, thinking, moving, and interacting all on it's own independance, as well is using it's own blood supply.

While the fetus is still attached to the mother, it is still using her oxygen, her blood, her energy..... therefore, it's still a part of her..... not an individual.

Rip that fetus out of the body and it'll die, because it is not a complete human, therefore it shouldn't be given human rights anymore then a liver should be given human rights.

Just because it looks like a human, doesn't make it so and if it can not survive on its body functions, then it's not technically a human being.... it's in development.... which is why it's called a fetus to begin with.

It's not logical or reasonable to accept a fetus as some equivilant to a "Developed human being" because it's not fully developed in the first place..... it's developing.

Go plead your case in the "life at conception" thread; you'll get no argument from me. I'm just saying that this particular case doesn't in any way refute the anti-abortion stance.

[Praxius]

But I don't have a legal right, and I doubt you support granting me one.

Nope.... but a fetus having a legal right in anything revolves around if it can be considered a human being... which it's not... it's a fetus.

They don't hand out medical degrees based on common sense.

And having a medical degree doesn't mean someone is without flaw.... but let's delve into this a bit further shall we?

"We don't know if she will develop the pregnancy up to the end because of the structure of her body. It is a big risk for her,'' the doctor who confirmed her pregnancy before she was taken to the institute, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti, told the Diario de Pernambuco.

"She doesn't have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins,'' he said.

Girl, 9, to abort twins | World Breaking News | News.com.au

^ Apparently this guy who has a medical degree says she won't physically have the ability to give birth without risk to her health, and perhaps her life.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or a brain sergeon to know this.... take a 9 year old girl and get her to hold two new born babies... get yourself a visual and try to picture both of those inside her womb and picture that all going through her pelvis.

It ain't gonna happen, and I'm not all for testing it to be sure on a 9 year old girl who had no real ability to decide if she wanted to get pregnant in the first place.

Those mutant rape spawns can be removed for all I care in comparison to this girl.... but opinions are varrying.

Depends whether you accept their premise.

Which I don't, because I see no logic in it.

So could the mother.

First the girl can't become still born, because she's already been born 9 years ago..... secondly she will survive and live beyond this if she get's an abortion..... her chances of survival going through this birth are much less, if anything at all.

The only thing that would be a risk to her life in relation to this abortion would be if some crazies decide to take their frustrations out on her.... when if they want to do that, there's her step father for that sort of thing.

Go plead your case in the "life at conception" thread; you'll get no argument from me. I'm just saying that this particular case doesn't in any way refute the anti-abortion stance.

I believe it does.... and I think I did state my case there a while back.... but it's been a while.

Anywho, I've really got not much else to say in regards to the topic.. but I'll respond to any questions later of course.

Tis all in good fun, doncha know (Well maybe not for the girl)

[viper]

Well normally I'm anti abortion, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out 9yo girl, twin babies, hmm don't fit. Of course alot of people will agree with me in that a 3rd 'abortion' should also take place here

[Aussie]

Well surprise surprise, the church objects to the abortion


A NINE-YEAR-OLD girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion today despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church.

Police said the stepfather has been jailed since last week, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 36-kilogram girl, AP reported.

"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Ms Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section, AP reported.

Pregnant girl, 9, aborts twins | World News | News.com.au

Seriously, where does a LAWYER of a church get off trying to dicate how and when a child should give birth to another child. Honestly, f off.

[The Bacon Guy]

Nope.... but a fetus having a legal right in anything revolves around if it can be considered a human being... which it's not... it's a fetus.

Which I don't, because I see no logic in it.

Which is the whole point. If you accept the premise that a foetus is a human being with equal rights to other human beings, as anti-abortionists do, it follows that it's wrong for this girl to have an abortion.

You can't refute an anti-abortion stance unless you refute this premise. This particular case does not refute or even address the premise and thus is not a convincing argument against the anti-abortionists.

but let's delve into this a bit further shall we?

"We don't know if she will develop the pregnancy up to the end because of the structure of her body. It is a big risk for her,'' the doctor who confirmed her pregnancy before she was taken to the institute, Jose Severiano Cavalcanti, told the Diario de Pernambuco.

"She doesn't have a pelvis able to support a gestation of twins,'' he said.

Girl, 9, to abort twins | World Breaking News | News.com.au

^ Apparently this guy who has a medical degree says she won't physically have the ability to give birth without risk to her health, and perhaps her life.

Of course there's a risk to her life; I never denied this. What I objected to was the claim that it's either probable or definite that she would die as a result of giving birth.

First the girl can't become still born, because she's already been born 9 years ago..... secondly she will survive and live beyond this if she get's an abortion.....

She might get hit by a car the day after the abortion. The pont is that if we take any two human beings, in this case the girl and the foetus, there's a chance either of them could die at any time. You can't assign a value to the life based on the chances of survival.

[Aussie]

She might get hit by a car the day after the abortion. The pont is that if we take any two human beings, in this case the girl and the foetus, there's a chance either of them could die at any time. You can't assign a value to the life based on the chances of survival.

Ok, here's a case of where a mother was holding 15, yes 15, foetus.

Can you assign life on the basis of survival here? Yes you can. Much like you can with an undeveloped 9 year old who according to medical practioners could not safely go ahead with the birth. And why should she, because a bunch of religious people hold a belief that she shouldn't?

Incredible But True - Google Book Search

[The Bacon Guy]

Can you assign life on the basis of survival here? Yes you can. Much like you can with an undeveloped 9 year old who according to medical practioners could not safely go ahead with the birth.

You don't have a right to kill another person to save your own life, particularly if it's not even certain that you will die if you don't. I don't, for example, have the right to kill you and steal your liver if I need a transplant.

Again, boils down to whether or not you consider the foetus a person, which is an issue not addressed by the story in the OP.

[nyre]

One question for The Bacon Guy.

Let's say:

You have a 9 yr old daughter. I presume you are male, so lets says another male rapes her. She gets pregnant with twins. Probably has no idea what has happened to her, or what a pregnancy involves, only that the doctors have told you and her that it is risk for her to carry to term.

Can you HONESTLY say that you would look her in the eye and say "sorry, you have to carry to term, you might die, but hey, it's what you should do?"

Honestly, put yourself in the role of the parent, YOUR daughter...

Seems pretty unreasonable, no?

While I can appreciate your side, and can agree that the abortion law needs to be controlled, ie Teens who get pregnant for lack of using protection and abort, no that is wrong, but sometimes circumstances are not so one sided and we need to be able to look at it from the other view point and see where they are coming from.