Posted on Mar 1, 2019
An 11-year-old rape victim in Argentina begged for an abortion. Instead, she was forced to have a...
552
13
8
2
1
1
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/01/argentina-rape-victim-forced-give-birth-after-wanting-abortion/ [login to see] /
This is sign of what America wants to become.
Slicing open 11 yr old rape victims to "save" a fetus that will likely not survive.
You can NEVER justify this shit!! Religion be damned if that is what we become!! Some morality this is.
This baby did not even understand what was growing inside her!
First you force sex on her then you for her to let it grow then you FORCE her to be cut open for what, your sense of morality.
You will never convince me this is the RIGHT thing to do.
Like I said, right-to-life supports child rapist and do not care ANYTHING for the mother or child.
This is sign of what America wants to become.
Slicing open 11 yr old rape victims to "save" a fetus that will likely not survive.
You can NEVER justify this shit!! Religion be damned if that is what we become!! Some morality this is.
This baby did not even understand what was growing inside her!
First you force sex on her then you for her to let it grow then you FORCE her to be cut open for what, your sense of morality.
You will never convince me this is the RIGHT thing to do.
Like I said, right-to-life supports child rapist and do not care ANYTHING for the mother or child.
An 11-year-old rape victim in Argentina begged for an abortion. Instead, she was forced to have a...
Posted from usatoday.comPosted in these groups: 
Health
Health
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
MSgt Michael Bischoff
It is adult and child abuse. She was forced to carry this 23;for it only to die. Because the child was to young to carry a child. This is as sick as the poster the pro-rapist and chil molesters post.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This is indeed a sad event. Another source said the problem was getting parental consent for the procedure. It seems that the grandmother had legal custody of this child until her boy-friend was charged with her rape, leaving no legal guardian.
(2)
(0)
1
0
1
I prefer to keep it civil, but I cannot and will not in this case. If you are asserting this is the position of main stream people of faith, you are full of it and a Damnable troll. If you want to be a troll, don't bitch about getting an appropriate response.
No one, NO ONE... NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!! wants this. And you know it. Your assertion is bereft of any intellectual honesty. If you want to be a religious bigot, do it honestly. Otherwise, pick your fights with the sick individuals who deserve it, NOT wide swaths of humanity. It is no more intellectually honest than me pointing at Pol Pot and claiming that is the national vision of atheists in general and you in particular. Right to life no more supports child rape than atheism support wholesale population extermination.
I am anti-abortion. I am also pro-"separation of Church and State." I'd love to present my moral objection to abortion and can do so without any reliance on scripture. But I've learned that bigots like you won't even take the time to read it.
You use the phrase "First you force sex on her." I didn't force sex on her and neither did anyone following any semblance of an established any sane religion. In this case, the fact that she is eleven , probably mandates an abortion, to protect her life. That is a case where serious decisions need to be made by competent medical authority, on a case by case basis in front of a judge, in an expedited time frame.
I'm quite sure you are doing this to paint pro-life activist and principled people of faith as radical nuts because of the recently failed Born-Alive Survivor's Protection Plan Act. Here is the truth. The Supreme Court decisions on abortion have left it to the states to set their own "reasonable" limits on late term abortions, but SCOTUS has only made decision on cases that are deemed too restrictive. But SEVEN states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont) plus the District of Columbia have no restriction at all on post fetal viability abortions.
Quite literally an affluent women who has come to full-term, with a healthy viable baby, that has no maternal health risk associated with her pregnancy can go into labor. And short of complete expulsion of the baby, she can have the pregnancy terminated. For no more reason than, my partner and I had a fight last night, or I woke up this morning and decided "I'm not ready for a baby." That is some SHIT that can NEVER be justified, or does killing babies because they are "inconvenient" line up with your sense of morality.
No one, NO ONE... NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!! wants this. And you know it. Your assertion is bereft of any intellectual honesty. If you want to be a religious bigot, do it honestly. Otherwise, pick your fights with the sick individuals who deserve it, NOT wide swaths of humanity. It is no more intellectually honest than me pointing at Pol Pot and claiming that is the national vision of atheists in general and you in particular. Right to life no more supports child rape than atheism support wholesale population extermination.
I am anti-abortion. I am also pro-"separation of Church and State." I'd love to present my moral objection to abortion and can do so without any reliance on scripture. But I've learned that bigots like you won't even take the time to read it.
You use the phrase "First you force sex on her." I didn't force sex on her and neither did anyone following any semblance of an established any sane religion. In this case, the fact that she is eleven , probably mandates an abortion, to protect her life. That is a case where serious decisions need to be made by competent medical authority, on a case by case basis in front of a judge, in an expedited time frame.
I'm quite sure you are doing this to paint pro-life activist and principled people of faith as radical nuts because of the recently failed Born-Alive Survivor's Protection Plan Act. Here is the truth. The Supreme Court decisions on abortion have left it to the states to set their own "reasonable" limits on late term abortions, but SCOTUS has only made decision on cases that are deemed too restrictive. But SEVEN states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont) plus the District of Columbia have no restriction at all on post fetal viability abortions.
Quite literally an affluent women who has come to full-term, with a healthy viable baby, that has no maternal health risk associated with her pregnancy can go into labor. And short of complete expulsion of the baby, she can have the pregnancy terminated. For no more reason than, my partner and I had a fight last night, or I woke up this morning and decided "I'm not ready for a baby." That is some SHIT that can NEVER be justified, or does killing babies because they are "inconvenient" line up with your sense of morality.
(1)
(1)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
You cannot in any way justify this kind of crap and treating children this way!,
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Michael Bischoff - Read again. Where did I justify ANYTHING that happened? Where did I say that ANYTHING was handled correctly?
In Argentina, abortion can be performed legally by a certified doctor if:
_The abortion has been made to avoid danger to life or health of the mother and whether this danger cannot be avoided by other means.
_The pregnancy results from rape, or an attempt against the purity of a feeble-minded or demented woman.
Clearly both of those non-sectarian conditions were met. But where was the active intervention you imply, by any church or any church official? As far as the C-section, once again look to the secular law... "and whether this danger cannot be avoided by other means."
Your words Leave no doubt that you are asserting that:
_ "First you force sex on her..." What church set of religious dogma or doctrine demands the rape of an eleven year old?
_ "then you for[ce] her to let it grow in her..." since the abortion met qualifying conditions in Argentina to be legal, was there some sort of intervention by religious forces to delay the abortion past the point of fetal viability. Read your article... It is explained, the delays had nothing to due with religion and everything to do with the fact that she was minor and the state had to make a case to get her made a ward of the state.
_"then you FORCE her to be cut open for what, your sense of morality." implying
that natural child birth posed no medical threat to an eleven year old, and religious forces stepped in and mandated a c-section just to be evil bastards, because a c-section is somehow morally superior to natural child birth. That was a medical decision made by doctors to do what was best for the child?
Despite being wrong at every turn, you turn your wrath on people of faith. I didn't hear one single word of wrath against the grandmother who didn't protect the girl, the grandmother's boyfriend who raped the girl, or the secular system that failed to address this little girl's situation in a timely manner.
In Argentina, abortion can be performed legally by a certified doctor if:
_The abortion has been made to avoid danger to life or health of the mother and whether this danger cannot be avoided by other means.
_The pregnancy results from rape, or an attempt against the purity of a feeble-minded or demented woman.
Clearly both of those non-sectarian conditions were met. But where was the active intervention you imply, by any church or any church official? As far as the C-section, once again look to the secular law... "and whether this danger cannot be avoided by other means."
Your words Leave no doubt that you are asserting that:
_ "First you force sex on her..." What church set of religious dogma or doctrine demands the rape of an eleven year old?
_ "then you for[ce] her to let it grow in her..." since the abortion met qualifying conditions in Argentina to be legal, was there some sort of intervention by religious forces to delay the abortion past the point of fetal viability. Read your article... It is explained, the delays had nothing to due with religion and everything to do with the fact that she was minor and the state had to make a case to get her made a ward of the state.
_"then you FORCE her to be cut open for what, your sense of morality." implying
that natural child birth posed no medical threat to an eleven year old, and religious forces stepped in and mandated a c-section just to be evil bastards, because a c-section is somehow morally superior to natural child birth. That was a medical decision made by doctors to do what was best for the child?
Despite being wrong at every turn, you turn your wrath on people of faith. I didn't hear one single word of wrath against the grandmother who didn't protect the girl, the grandmother's boyfriend who raped the girl, or the secular system that failed to address this little girl's situation in a timely manner.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google