21
   

Why would abortion after rape be ok?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2013 07:50 am
Don't waste your time on this clown "Shadowknight," who is about 12 years old. It's just here to make nasty remarks and laugh at people.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2013 08:55 am
@Setanta,
It's a waste of time arguing with somebody who asserts that their opponent is a 12 year-old clown as a means of declaring himself the winner. That's playground stuff.

And as for nasty remarks how about this--

Quote:
Do you mean as in aborting a cow, in which case she is de-calf-inated?


in the context here?
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2013 05:38 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Don't waste your time on this clown "Shadowknight," who is about 12 years old. It's just here to make nasty remarks and laugh at people.


I pretty much figured that by his last post.

9 whole months, wow, an eternity. although to a 12 year old, that would be.

Guess he doesn't realize good people are standing in line to get a baby, any baby.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2013 05:40 pm
decalf-inated.. Hardee Har Har

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 08:09 am
In the case below the womb did not belong to the girl in question but to her mother to be used as her mother saw fit.

Similar to the position taken here by some posters that a woman womb belong to the state to be used as the state see fit.


Quote:
Girl, 14, forced to become pregnant with donor sperm bought by mother
Judge describes 'wicked and selfish' motive of using daughter to provide parent with a fourth child
Share 2173

Caroline Davies
The Guardian, Sunday 28 April 2013 16.00 EDT

The daughter, A, began inseminating herself aged 14 at her mother's request, before successfully conceiving and then giving birth at 16. Picture posed by model. Photograph: Robert Matton/Alamy
A mother forced her 14-year-old adopted daughter to inseminate herself with donor sperm to provide a baby for her after she was prevented from adopting any more children, it can be revealed.

The daughter, a virgin, is believed to have miscarried at 14, but went on to have a baby at 16 after regularly inseminating herself with sperm bought over the internet by her "domineering" mother because she was too scared to refuse.

Details of the shocking case have emerged in a previously secret court judgment, which can be reported today for the first time and which raises serious questions over loopholes in international adoptions and the regulation of the global traffic in gametes.

The adoptive mother, who cannot be identified for fear of identifying her daughter and grandchild, is now serving a five-year prison sentence after admitting child cruelty.

In a high court judgment deciding welfare provisions, family division judge Mr Justice Jackson described "an abiding sense of disbelief that a parent could behave in such a wicked and selfish way towards a vulnerable child".

The mother had already adopted three children as babies from abroad, twice when she was married and once as a single parent after her divorce. She had chosen not to give birth herself because of a health condition and had undergone an elective sterilisation.

But she was distraught when an attempt to adopt a fourth baby was thwarted when she was denied approval.

The judgment, released after representations from media organisations including the Guardian, states the mother immediately turned to her adopted daughter.

The daughter "became pregnant at her mother's request, using donor sperm bought by the mother, with the purposes of providing a fourth child for the mother to bring up as her own", the judgment states.

"The AI [artificial insemination] programme was planned when A [the daughter] was 13, began when she was 14 and ended when she became pregnant with D [her child]" aged 16, the judge said.

The truth was only discovered at the birth. Midwives were alarmed at the "pushy and insensitive" mother, who tried to prevent her daughter breastfeeding the newborn, saying "we don't want any of that attachment thing". Noticing the daughter's reluctance to hand the baby to her mother, they called in child protection workers when the mother attempted to remove the baby from the ward.

In a week-long hearing, held in private, the judge heard there were four occasions when the local authority, which cannot be named, was alerted to the mother's inappropriate behaviour towards her children but did not find cause for concern. A serious case review into the case is due to be published next month.

The mother, described as "highly articulate", and who "loves the children and they undoubtedly love her", had isolated the family. The children were schooled at home, and the adoptive father of the eldest two was deliberately excluded, did not know where they lived and had not seen them for 10 years. Neighbours and social services were kept at bay.

"The mother resorted to the AI programme because she was determined to have a fourth child, and because there was no other way of achieving this," said the judge. The daughter "allowed her body to be used by her mother because she loves her", and though she did not want to take part, she has said in interviews she was not "brave enough" to tell her mother.

The mother subjected her to a "degrading, humiliating and, on occasions, painful" ordeal. Over two years the daughter had to inseminate herself seven times, "alone in her bedroom, using syringes of semen and douches prepared by the mother".

Her mother had purchased ovulation-testing equipment to work out when her daughter was most likely to conceive. Because the mother wanted a girl, she forced her daughter to use painful acidic douches containing vinegar or lemon and lime juice, and eat a special diet, in the belief it could affect gender.

On the first occasion, semen was provided by a donor who came to the house. The others involved sperm purchased from Cryos International, an international sperm-bank network based in Denmark.

The daughter, who had no friends of her own age, later told investigators she was "shocked, pretty shocked" when her mother first asked her but also thought, "if I do this … maybe she will love me more". In agreeing, she said "feelings of gratitude for my adoption influenced how I behaved".

The court was shown a Mother's Day list drawn up by the daughter of things she could give her mother, which included a picture of a positive pregnancy test kit.

The judge said it was "likely that A had briefly become pregnant at 14" but had miscarried. When she became pregnant at 16, health workers were told the false story that she had spent the night with a boy who abandoned her and was now abroad. The girl also told health professionals it was her wish for her mother to bring up the child. The girl had, with her mother, attended private clinics on occasion for pregnancy testing, and the mother had changed her GP.

On four occasions social services were alerted over concerns about the children's welfare but on each found no immediate child protection concerns. On two of those occasions, a neighbour, worried about the children's isolation and the mother's shouting and swearing, had called. On another, the mother's GP raised concerns about who was looking after the children when the mother was admitted to hospital for a month.

The local authority was also alerted by an anonymous acquaintance who wrote to agencies and officials in the country from which the mother was seeking to adopt a fourth child, apparently raising concerns over her suitability. This ultimately resulted in her being denied approval. The court heard there were also questions over whether the third adoption had been legal, or if it had flouted international loopholes.

The mother had succeeded in keeping social services at arms' length so that their intervention was "essentially superficial", the judge said.

DNA tests showed the child was conceived using donor sperm supplied through Cryos. The judge said there were "no effective checks on a person's ability to obtain sperm from Cryos" and that no "meaningful medical involvement is demanded", except for a document, purporting to record the authority of a physician and which in any case the mother had forged.

The judge also noted that no checks were made on the children regarding home schooling after the mother refused to allow an education welfare officer to visit. The only contact was by email, so "the approval [for] home education was given without anyone ever setting eyes on the children".

In a statement, the local Safeguarding Children Board said: "Nothing can change what has happened to the children in this truly terrible case. It is clear that public bodies must highlight the major public policy issues which arise from this case. The relevant local Safeguarding Children Board has undertaken a serious case review and they aim to have this published in the coming weeks.

"The lessons from this case are already being put into practice as the relevant agencies are starting to implement its draft fin
dings."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 10:49 am
@ehBeth,
What is your stance in a case where a parent decides for religious reasons, or really any other, to withold permission for a medical procedure that very certainly will save the life of an ill child and presents very little medical risk? The classic example is withholding permission to conduct a blood transfusion.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 03:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
A doctor can over-ride that I assume Finn.

A doctor ought to over-ride a request for abortion if he believes life begins at conception. If he doesn't believe that he has a problem saying when life does begin.
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 09:10 pm
@spendius,
Wow, we're still at this point all these years later?

Life continues through conception into offspring. It began a long time ago. The argument's a red herring.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 05:10 am
@Eorl,
Why?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 09:13 am
@spendius,
Not here he can't, at least not without a court order.

In terms of abortions, (currently) is not required to perform the procedure.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 12:53 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

A doctor can over-ride that I assume Finn.

A doctor ought to over-ride a request for abortion if he believes life begins at conception. If he doesn't believe that he has a problem saying when life does begin.


A doctor has no right to impose his or her beliefs on a patient seeking a legal procedure. In England, Wales and Scotland the 1967 Abortion Act contains a 'conscience clause' which allows a medical practitioner to refuse to participate in abortions, but the terms of employment of National Health Service doctors require them, in such a situation, to refer the patient to another practitioner. Refusal to do so could lead to investigation for malpractice, and possibly dismissal and/or removal from the medical register.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:01 pm
@chai2,
Abortion is self defense
against an intrusive parasite.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Abortion is self defense against an intrusive parasite.


Considering how frequently you have illustrated yourself to be exactly that, a parasite, Om, one is left to wonder what it was that possessed your mom to carry you to term.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:31 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Refusal to do so could lead to investigation for malpractice, and possibly dismissal and/or removal from the medical register.


"Could" ! Has it ever happened? I know which side the writer of that sentence is on in this debate. They sought to link in the reader's mind the conscience of a doctor they don't agree with, with "investigation", "malpractice", dismissal" and being "struck off". An impression, de facto if not de jure, of criminality.

Any doctor who considers the unborn child to be a life would be breaking his oath to kill it. If he doesn't consider it a life at some point then he needs to define precisely when he does. And he can't.

I can't imagine a patient having any difficulty referring herself to another practitioner.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:33 pm
@JTT,
Dave has a thing about being outrageous. It is the prick that put the kid there that is the intrusive parasite.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:42 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Any doctor who considers the unborn child to be a life would be breaking his oath to kill it.
Is the fetus his patient?
Is the fetus paying the doctor for his services ?

or is the doctor just killing a parasite
that intruded upon his patient ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:48 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Dave has a thing about being outrageous.
It is the prick that put the kid there that is the intrusive parasite.
The parasite is a bloodsucker
that occasionally kills his hostess (victim)
after afflicting her with a lot of pain
(unless she pre-emptively counter attacks).
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It's astounding that the state of New York actually allowed you to practice law, Sig.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It's whatever you want to define it as isn't it? Since Roe/Wade it's a bit nebulous.

I still say that the prick that introduced him or her into the world is the invasive parasite.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 01:56 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I still say that the prick that introduced him or her into the world is the invasive parasite.


Like father like son.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is the fetus in the womb a human being? - Question by kellirosej
Abortion - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
Abortion. Right or Murder? - Question by lmac2017
Higher Learning? - Discussion by coldjoint
Motivation of Abortion Protesters - Question by gollum
People Wonder Why . . . - Question by plainoldme
God Damnit, Texas. - Discussion by DrewDad
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/15/2019 at 11:04:47