Posted on 03/23/2005 10:01:06 AM PST by stylin_geek
Any 14 year old daughter of mine would have been raised to understand unequivocally that having a baby at age 14 is out of the question. And to have sufficient understanding of, and access to, contraceptives and "morning after" pills, to be highly unlikely to ever have any reason to go to an abortion clinic. Parents have a responsibility to try to prevent their children from suffering irreparable harm, and IMO allowing a child to have baby at that age constitutes irreparable harm.
While I can't picture myself actually using physical force to make an adolescent offspring have an abortion (nor do I believe there are any abortion clinics that would consent to perform the procedure under such circumstances), I do think there is significant benefit to taking the decision-making process out of the child's hands -- both because a girl that age is unequipped to appreciate the possible effects of *either* choice, and because having the adult take responsibility for decision-making relieves the child of a sense of responsibility for it (it's hard to feel guilty about a choice somebody else made).
Shudder..
My husband made the mistake of telling me about this story as he was just about to drop me off at work, where I have to be cheery and talk to customers. It took me about twenty minutes to regain a voice that sounded like I wasn't JUST about to cry.
The land of the free... and the home of legal murder...
Happens all the time - and the prodeath crowd WON'T do anything about the pedophiles.
One would think the school district has some 'splaining to do too-- most have rules in place that only certain people are allowed to pick the kid up.
Ah, I see now.
The girl knowingly conspired with the evil mom of her supposed boyfriend (who will now likely either dump her, or keep her for amusement and further use and abuse) and she will also reap her harvest someday.
Allowing them free access to sex and birth control at age 14 (if they feel they need it) is not suffering irreparable harm?
There is no danger in it if they learn from it and if it is for valid reasons.
Oh yeah, let's not offend anyone lest they just continue to go out and murder innocent babies by any method that's convenient.
I cannot believe you just said that!
(people who freely choose to abuse their children because they believe it is the right thing to do...)
You've bought the lie I see. "as long as I don't think I feel bad about it, it's ok..."
sounds like a really good civil and criminal case here.
I'm shocked that you're shocked.
What is this country coming to? :-/
Somebody shrunk your head.
You know, most Germans did not know for sure what happened in concentration camps. We Americans know what is done in abortion clinics and other kinds of death mills, we vote for politicians who want to stop it, yet we are powerless in the face of judicial tyranny.
""We would point to cigarette smoking and its health consequences as an answer. In the 1950s and 1960s, each point delineated in the preceding paragraph could have been, and were, applied to the dilemma of studying whether tobacco consumption has adverse health consequences. Although no individual clinician or patient could discern the harm of cigarette smoking and all studies had to be observational with their inherent biases, well-done epidemiologic research was able to document adverse consequences and ultimately inform public opinion and policy. Elective abortion must be studied in the same fashion with similar vigor, given the frequency with which women choose to terminate a pregnancy and the important and prevalent health conditions that some of the data gathered heretofore have linked to elective abortion, e.g., preterm birth and breast cancer. Women deserve to be fully and accurately informed about potential health effects of elective abortion, preferably in a health education context separate and distinct from the timeframe of actually being faced with making difficult decisions about whether to continue or end a pregnancy.""
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 2003; 58(1):67-79. Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence John M. Thorp Jr., MD Katherine E. Hartmann, MD, PhD Elizabeth Shadigian, MD
The girls are not being made pregnant in order to prevent breast cancer, they are pregnant and are being warned that they will lose the protective effect of pregnancy if they abort this child. The irresponsible act would be to fail to warn women of the increased risk.
Over 30 years ago, the first pregnancy books I bought stated the fact that an early completed pregnancy had a protective effect against breast cancer. We know that women who have never had a child (i.e., nuns) have a significantly higher risk of breast cancer. We understand the biophysiology that increases the risks and can show dose effect. As well as a correlation of the rates of breast cancer and abortion. That's as close as medicine gets to causal relationship in most cancers. Breast cancer, like lung cancer and most other cancers, is not "caused" by anyone factor, but we can identify risk factors.
As I offered, before, I would be glad to email you the paper. Or you could look at the source, yourself. It's a respected journal.
There no difference in the reasoning. Either it makes sense to have a baby you don't want and aren't prepared to raise, in order to get a small but significant reduction in your risk of breast cancer, or it doesn't. To my mind it's equally ludicrous to promote this benefit as a reason not to have an abortion, as it is to promote it to encourage teen pregnancy.
Since the local cops, won't intervene, maybe governor BJ will do something about it.
Naw part of the daley mob.
Forced abortion for 12 & under? Found on a "pro-choice" website http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/post-56798.html Pretty soon they're gonna have to change their movement's name to what it really is Pro-death because they are starting to get to the point where they can't even pretend to be for choice.
Also a related story about a 12year old who is forced to abort her baby after about 7 months (29 weeks)http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL8.98/29.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.