Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

And nor is granting a right to abortion, is all I am saying.

Can you suggest another way for an already-raped child to avoid the following?

volchitsa wrote: »

And secondly, no, it doesn't make the rape go away, but enforcing a,difficult and dangerous pregnancy on a child is in itself a second crime, one which is likely to leave her with physical as well as mental scars on top of the harm from the rape.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

But no-one thinks that it is, do they? Many of us think that granting a right to abortion would prevent a further crime being committed as a result of the first crime, against a rape victim, that's all.

Mmm. But that's not what PopePalpatine said (or appeared to say). None of the 700+ children who became pregnant in Paraguay did so because of the abortion ban. And if the ban were lifted the pregnancies, and the antecedent rapes, would all still have occurred. Suggesting that the pregnancies represent the "harsh reality" of an abortion ban indicates a seriously unbalanced response to child rape to me. We don't call adult rape "the harsh reality of Ireland's abortion ban", do we? Advocates for rape victims would go through us for a short cut if we did that, and rightly so.

Look, maybe I'm being unfair on PP - it was a one-liner on an internet forum, and we all dash these things off without thinking them through from time to time. It just created (for me) the impression of taking a really serious issue and pressing it into service in the pursuit of a different agenda. Paraguay could have the most liberal abortion regime in the world, and the problem of child rape would be just as big as it ever was.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you suggest another way for an already-raped child to avoid the following?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not willing to start the conversation from "an already-raped child". Starting the conversation from that point is a pretty clear indication that the true agenda doesn't have much to do with addressing the phenomenon of child rape.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I'm just not willing to start the conversation from "an already-raped child". Starting the conversation from that point is a pretty clear indication that the true agenda doesn't have much to do with addressing the phenomenon of child rape.

That's patently an absolutely ridiculous notion.

You are proposing that we utterly ignore the ramifications of rape, which we can only do in the absence of any and all rapes (that is, that not a single rape takes place).

It's akin to a discussion between doctors where a doctor would refuse to consider the treatment of stab victims because stabbings shouldn't take place.

Suggesting that a doctor saying "well what do we do with a stab victim?" is somehow 'enabling' knife crime.

The question stands

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. But that's not what PopePalpatine said (or appeared to say). None of the 700+ children who became pregnant in Paraguay did so because of the abortion ban.

This is stupid. Do you genuinely believe anyone thinks that someone became pregnant anywhere depending on whether or not there was a ban on abortion in their country? If so, either you or they need to take an elementary course in human biology - and I think we've seen enough of PP's posts to know that this isn't the case for her (him?).

Personally I don't read that post in the way you insisting on doing, that's your own choices and one does have to wonder why you think it's a plausible reading, giving the biological implausibility of your reading.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the ban were lifted the pregnancies, and the antecedent rapes, would all still have occurred. Suggesting that the RECORDED pregnancies represent the "harsh reality" of an abortion ban indicates a seriously unbalanced response to child rape to me.

FTFY.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We don't call adult rape "the harsh reality of Ireland's abortion ban", do we? Advocates for rape victims would go through us for a short cut if we did that, and rightly so.

Look, maybe I'm being unfair on PP - it was a one-liner on an internet forum, and we all dash these things off without thinking them through from time to time. It just created (for me) the impression of taking a really serious issue and pressing it into service in the pursuit of a different agenda. Paraguay could have the most liberal abortion regime in the world, and the problem of child rape would be just as big as it ever was.

Look maybe you were, in fact clearly you were, and it's quite odd that this is what bothers you more than the fact of enforcing a pregnancy on a child.

robdonn

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that those children all had their pregnancies recorded as though they were normal, wanted, pregnancies is the consequence of Paraguay's abortion laws.

Aren't all pregnancies recorded? If an adult woman is raped and becomes pregnant, isn't her pregnancy recorded regardless of the circumstances?

The manner in which someone becomes pregnant doesn't change the biological fact that they are pregnant, those that aren't recorded are either a) not known and terminate naturally, b) are known and hidden or c) are known, hidden and terminated by some means (either by travelling to somewhere that abortion is legal or by back-street procedures).

Making abortion legal probably wouldn't reduce the numbers of recorded pregnancies but would probably increase it, as those that fall into the c) category would then be able to avail of a legal termination route and, if it is regulated and operated in a way similar to countries like the UK, the process would be recorded.

Removing the ban on abortions would not reduce the rate of child rape, but it could have the effect of giving more accurate numbers as to the extent of the crime. It could also have the effect, in some cases, of relieving parents from having to make the choice of whether to report it or to terminate it as currently doing one would put them in legal trouble if they then did the other.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're right it would make the birth rate for raped children lower, that you probably see that as a bad thing actually makes me pity you a bit.

I don't know whether that makes you kind in pitying me, or unkind in imagining I would probably see that as a bad thing. Perhaps I'm just not as judgmental as you. Regardless, it still seems to me that the root of the problem isn't the abortion ban, it's the rapes.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

Aren't all pregnancies recorded? If an adult woman is raped and becomes pregnant, isn't her pregnancy recorded regardless of the circumstances?

I imagine that depends on the country's legislation, doesn't it? Is it recorded as a pregnancy which triggers child allowance and the like, then no, not in countries where abortion is legal. If you mean as a crime, well, is making a woman pregnant through rape a different crime to just raping her? Presumably in that case the record would be simply as part of the evidence of the rape (and maybe not even then). Again, that's not how I interpret the use of the word here, I take it to mean "recorded" as an expected birth, a woman who is going to have a child, who will be requiring obstetric care in the weeks and months to come.

The manner in which someone becomes pregnant doesn't change the biological fact that they are pregnant, those that aren't recorded are either a) not known and terminate naturally, b) are known and hidden or c) are known, hidden and terminated by some means (either by travelling to somewhere that abortion is legal or by back-street procedures).

Well not necessarily. I lived (and was pregnant) for some years in a country where abortion is available, and the law required recording of a pregnancy only after the legal delay for abortion had passed. That's what I take that phrase to mean.

Making abortion legal probably wouldn't reduce the numbers of recorded pregnancies but would probably increase it, as those that fall into the c) category would then be able to avail of a legal termination route and, if it is regulated and operated in a way similar to countries like the UK, the process would be recorded.

Sorry I can't quite follow this bit. Could you explain?

Removing the ban on abortions would not reduce the rate of child rape, but it could have the effect of giving more accurate numbers as to the extent of the crime. It could also have the effect, in some cases, of relieving parents from having to make the choice of whether to report it or to terminate it as currently doing one would put them in legal trouble if they then did the other.

Or this really. A legal termination is also recorded, as a termination, so how the child became pregnant in the first place remains as much of an issue no matter how the pregnancy is dealt with.

Or perhaps you are saying something else?

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

Aren't all pregnancies recorded? If an adult woman is raped and becomes pregnant, isn't her pregnancy recorded regardless of the circumstances?

The manner in which someone becomes pregnant doesn't change the biological fact that they are pregnant, those that aren't recorded are either a) not known and terminate naturally, b) are known and hidden or c) are known, hidden and terminated by some means (either by travelling to somewhere that abortion is legal or by back-street procedures).

Not quite. Live births are registered, obviously. Stillbirths may be registered, but it's optional - up to the parents. Regardless, I think they are counted and reported in medical statistics. Induced abortions are not individually recorded (except in the private medical records of the patient concerned) but they are counted and reported in statistical form. Miscarriages are not systematically recorded or counted, so far as I am aware, even when known to the woman concerned. Miscarriages occurring in hospital would be, but that's a small proportion of all miscarriages.

The bottom line is that pregnancies, as such, aren't recorded or counted at all. Some of the ways in which a pregnancy can end are recorded or counted, while others are not.

robdonn wrote: »

Making abortion legal probably wouldn't reduce the numbers of recorded pregnancies but would probably increase it, as those that fall into the c) category would then be able to avail of a legal termination route and, if it is regulated and operated in a way similar to countries like the UK, the process would be recorded.

Removing the ban on abortions would not reduce the rate of child rape, but it could have the effect of giving more accurate numbers as to the extent of the crime. It could also have the effect, in some cases, of relieving parents from having to make the choice of whether to report it or to terminate it as currently doing one would put them in legal trouble if they then did the other.

Well, taking a step back for a minute, we should reflect that the bulk of child rapes don't result in pregnancy at all, just as the bulk of most sexual intercourse doesn't result in pregnancy. (More so, in fact, since presumably many of the raped children are not of an age to be fertile.) We can speculate about whether permitting abortion would make child rape easier (because easier to manage the possible consequences, should a pregnancy result) or more difficult (because of better reporting of pregancies that result, therefore more pressure to resolve the problem). Either way, it's speculation. But the truth is, as far as the phenomenon of child rape as a whole goes, whichever way the effect nets out, it's probably pretty marginal. We don't expect permitting abortion to have much impact on the problem of adult rape; why would we think it would have much impact on the problem of child rape?

There may well be good arguments for permitting raped children access to abortion - several have been pointed to in this thread, and (despite what some have assumed) I am in favour of this. But we delude ourselves if we think that this is an effective response to child rape.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

But we delude ourselves if we think that this is an effective response to child rape.

And no-one has suggested that it is, though some like yourself have suggested that other people may think that.

Access to safe, legal pregnancy termination is however an effective response to child pregnancy, something which is, in its own right, sufficiently dangerous and traumatizing to the child concerned to be at least potentially indicated and possibly urgently required.

The fact that this pregnancy will have resulted from child rape is a separate issue which requires its own, separate course of action - whether or not the pregnancy is terminated.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

There may well be good arguments for permitting raped children access to abortion - several have been pointed to in this thread, and (despite what some have assumed) I am in favour of this. But we delude ourselves if we think that this is an effective response to child rape.

No delusions here, as as far as I can see nobody has promoted it as an effective response to child rape, but as a legitimate response to prevent further ordeal for that child that has been raped.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know whether that makes you kind in pitying me, or unkind in imagining I would probably see that as a bad thing. Perhaps I'm just not as judgmental as you. Regardless, it still seems to me that the root of the problem isn't the abortion ban, it's the rapes.

Hypothetical situation


You have a 14 year old daughter

She gets raped and is pregnant

She says she wants an abortion.

Would you rather she went for an abortion or would you prefer she went through 9 months of pregnancy carrying her rapists child before going through the trauma of childbirth?

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hypothetical situation You have a 14 year old daughter She gets raped and is pregnant She says she wants an abortion.
Would you rather she went for an abortion or would you prefer she went through 9 months of pregnancy carrying her rapists child before going through the trauma of childbirth?

How exactly does your hypothetical determine whether your judgement of me was kind or unkind?
Or is it intended to demonstrate that introducing abortion in Paraguay would make the real figure of girls of 14 or under giving birth much higher?

robdonn

volchitsa wrote: »

I imagine that depends on the country's legislation, doesn't it? Is it recorded as a pregnancy which triggers child allowance and the like, then no, not in countries where abortion is legal. If you mean as a crime, well, is making a woman pregnant through rape a different crime to just raping her? Presumably in that case the record would be simply as part of the evidence of the rape (and maybe not even then). Again, that's not how I interpret the use of the word here, I take it to mean "recorded" as an expected birth, a woman who is going to have a child, who will be requiring obstetric care in the weeks and months to come.

Hmm, I thought that just the state of being pregnant, if brought to the attention of your physician, would be recorded as you being pregnant regardless of the intended outcome. Recorded, but not necessarily registered, if that makes any sense.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well not necessarily. I lived (and was pregnant) for some years in a country where abortion is available, and the law required recording of a pregnancy only after the legal delay for abortion had passed. That's what I take that phrase to mean.

I had never heard about that, what country? (If you don't mind me asking)

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry I can't quite follow this bit. Could you explain?

Sorry, I think I worded this in a weird way.

Essentially my point is that if abortions were legally available then those that would normally seek back-alley abortions would have a legal route to achieve the same result. Then, since these abortions would be recorded in some sense (the fact that an abortion occurred, age of the client, etc., just general statistical information) then this information would increase the list of known child rape cases that resulted in pregnancy. If a 13 year old has an abortion then, provided the country doesn't have some strange marriage laws or incredibly low consent ages, it can be asserted that the child was raped.

volchitsa wrote: »

Or this really. A legal termination is also recorded, as a termination, so how the child became pregnant in the first place remains as much of an issue no matter how the pregnancy is dealt with.

Or perhaps you are saying something else?

I'm really not good at explaining myself this morning! :P

My point was simply that making abortion services available would mean that the abortions that would normally be done illegally, and may not have been included in the 700+ statistic, would then be identified and give a more accurate statistic. I'm not arguing that it would combat the issue of child rape but rather that it may give a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem, and the bigger the problem the more attention it gets.

My other point was that I can imagine that parents who find themselves in the situation of wanting to find their daughter's attacker may be conflicted. Please tell me if I'm making a silly mistake here, but:

a) Your child is raped and is pregnant, you go to the police and inform them but now the option of having an abortion is no longer available as they are aware of the pregnancy.

b) Your child is raped and is pregnant, you seek an illegal abortion to save your child from the physical and emotional trauma of carrying a rapist's child in their young body, but now you cannot go to the police as a physical examination of the child will probably reveal that a termination has taken place.

I'm sure there are parents out there that would gladly take the consequences of taking all action to further protect their child, but my point is that it's not a position that they should be put in.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I'm just not willing to start the conversation from "an already-raped child". Starting the conversation from that point is a pretty clear indication that the true agenda doesn't have much to do with addressing the phenomenon of child rape.

But this isn't a thread about the phenomenon of child rape, is it? So it's just as valid a question to ask as any other question not specifically about the content of the OP.

So why does that question cause you such a problem but not any of the others you have participated in discussing here?

You made the very good point that the vast majority of child rapes don't lead to child pregnancy. Is there a problem with discussing what should be done about those few which do though? Either the whole issue of child rape is off topic here, or none of it is.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

How exactly does your hypothetical determine whether your judgement of me was kind or unkind?

It doesn't, It determines whether you think abortion should be allowed in circumstances such as child rape.

Or is it intended to demonstrate that introducing abortion in Paraguay would make the real figure of girls of 14 or under giving birth much higher?

The introduction of abortion would actually make the figures of children who are impregnated by their rapist giving birth lower because there wouldn't be any births.


So back to the question I asked?

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite. Live births are registered, obviously. Stillbirths may be registered, but it's optional - up to the parents. Regardless, I think they are counted and reported in medical statistics. Induced abortions are not individually recorded (except in the private medical records of the patient concerned) but they are counted and reported in statistical form. Miscarriages are not systematically recorded or counted, so far as I am aware, even when known to the woman concerned. Miscarriages occurring in hospital would be, but that's a small proportion of all miscarriages.

The bottom line is that pregnancies, as such, aren't recorded or counted at all. Some of the ways in which a pregnancy can end are recorded or counted, while others are not.

I think that I was considering the recording of pregnancies in the more statistical recording way, rather than pregnancy/birth registering. I don't think that the recording of a pregnancy would have any effect over the cause of the pregnancy or it's outcome, but it would help to better reflect the true extent of the problem, obviously noting that it would only be recording data on the proportionally small amount of cases that result in a pregnancy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, taking a step back for a minute, we should reflect that the bulk of child rapes don't result in pregnancy at all, just as the bulk of most sexual intercourse doesn't result in pregnancy. (More so, in fact, since presumably many of the raped children are not of an age to be fertile.) We can speculate about whether permitting abortion would make child rape easier (because easier to manage the possible consequences, should a pregnancy result) or more difficult (because of better reporting of pregancies that result, therefore more pressure to resolve the problem). Either way, it's speculation. But the truth is, as far as the phenomenon of child rape as a whole goes, whichever way the effect nets out, it's probably pretty marginal. We don't expect permitting abortion to have much impact on the problem of adult rape; why would we think it would have much impact on the problem of child rape?

There may well be good arguments for permitting raped children access to abortion - several have been pointed to in this thread, and (despite what some have assumed) I am in favour of this. But we delude ourselves if we think that this is an effective response to child rape.

I don't think that anyone assumes that availability of abortion services would prevent rape, no matter what age of the victim. What people are arguing for is that abortion services should be available as a response to prevent further harm, whether physical or emotional, caused by carrying the pregnancy to term.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

Hmm, I thought that just the state of being pregnant, if brought to the attention of your physician, would be recorded as you being pregnant regardless of the intended outcome. Recorded, but not necessarily registered, if that makes any sense.



I had never heard about that, what country? (If you don't mind me asking)

Japan and the UK. Different procedures but the same underlying principle : notification of pregnancy required in order to benefit from various benefits and protections such as maternity care, leave or pay. In both cases, medical staff don't encourage immediate declaration, advising one to allow some weeks to pass to avoid extra administrative procedures when an early pregnancy is lost. I've been told (though this isn't said quite so explicitly to the patient) that this is as much about abortion as about miscarriage.

That's all I meant.

Failure to follow the correct notification procedure may forfeit eligibility to maternity pay or leave. The employee should notify her line manager and Human Resources in writing using the Maternity Leave Notification Form as soon as is reasonably practicable and not later than the end of the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth

https://www.soas.ac.uk/her/procedures/family/maternityproc/

And here : http://www.jistec.or.jp/independent/pdf/Living%20in%20Japan%20Ver1_0.pdf
(P 20)

Sorry, I think I worded this in a weird way.

Essentially my point is that if abortions were legally available then those that would normally seek back-alley abortions would have a legal route to achieve the same result. Then, since these abortions would be recorded in some sense (the fact that an abortion occurred, age of the client, etc., just general statistical information) then this information would increase the list of known child rape cases that resulted in pregnancy. If a 13 year old has an abortion then, provided the country doesn't have some strange marriage laws or incredibly low consent ages, it can be asserted that the child was raped.

I'm really not good at explaining myself this morning! :P

My point was simply that making abortion services available would mean that the abortions that would normally be done illegally, and may not have been included in the 700+ statistic, would then be identified and give a more accurate statistic. I'm not arguing that it would combat the issue of child rape but rather that it may give a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem, and the bigger the problem the more attention it gets.

My other point was that I can imagine that parents who find themselves in the situation of wanting to find their daughter's attacker may be conflicted. Please tell me if I'm making a silly mistake here, but:

a) Your child is raped and is pregnant, you go to the police and inform them but now the option of having an abortion is no longer available as they are aware of the pregnancy.

b) Your child is raped and is pregnant, you seek an illegal abortion to save your child from the physical and emotional trauma of carrying a rapist's child in their young body, but now you cannot go to the police as a physical examination of the child will probably reveal that a termination has taken place.

I'm sure there are parents out there that would gladly take the consequences of taking all action to further protect their child, but my point is that it's not a position that they should be put in.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It doesn't, It determines whether you think abortion should be allowed in circumstances such as child rape.

And, how is that relevant to PopePalpatines assertion that the number of pregnant teens in Paraguay could be much higher being somehow nebulously connected to Paraguays abortion legislation?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The introduction of abortion would actually make the figures of children who are impregnated by their rapist giving birth lower because there wouldn't be any births.

Ah... you're disputing PopePalpatines assertion! So despite your misplaced pity we have some common ground :-)

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So back to the question I asked?

Indeed. Do you find strangers often indulge your hypotheticals after you insult them?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

And, how is that relevant to PopePalpatines assertion that the number of pregnant teens in Paraguay could be much higher being somehow nebulously connected to Paraguays abortion legislation?
Ah... you're disputing PopePalpatines assertion! So despite your misplaced pity we have some common ground :-)

Indeed. Do you find strangers often indulge your hypotheticals after you insult them?

You are just skirting the issue without answering the question, typical deflection tactics.

If you had a 14 year old daughter who got pregnant by a rapist and she wanted an abortion would you allow her the abortion or would you force her to give birth to her rapists child? Simple question which I'm sure you already know the answer to.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You are just skirting the issue without answering the question, typical deflection tactics.
If you had a 14 year old daughter who got pregnant by a rapist and she wanted an abortion would you allow her the abortion or would you force her to give birth to her rapists child? Simple question which I'm sure you already know the answer to.

I am? Isn't the issue "The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher."?
I would have thought insulting people and throwing out hypothetical questions would be more in line with typical deflection tactics, surely?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I am? Isn't the issue "The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher."?
I would have thought insulting people and throwing out hypothetical questions would be more in line with typical deflection tactics, surely?

So an answer to the question anytime soon or will you continue to throw out everything else except for an answer to the question asked?

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So an answer to the question anytime soon or will you continue to throw out everything else except for an answer to the question asked?

But I did? I said "Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban? "

You quoted it in your post just after, remember?

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

But I did? I said "Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban? "

You quoted it in your post just after, remember?

Your silence speaks volumes

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Your silence speaks volumes

I'm sure it does... especially when you make up how I see things in your own head

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure it does... especially when you make up how I see things in your own head

Well when you refuse to answer questions people will obviously form their own opinions of you based on the scraps of evidence that you do provide. No worries anyways horse I have put you into a category reserved for a select few posters and there you will stay

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well when you refuse to answer questions people will obviously form their own opinions of you based on the scraps of evidence that you do provide. No worries anyways horse I have put you into a category reserved for a select few posters and there you will stay

Indeed... and that you believe you know how I will answer questions before you ask them is certainly indicative of how one might categorise your own posts if so inclined

PopePalpatine

Remember the five rules: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The harsh reality of Paraguay's abortion ban - about 700 girls of 14 or younger were recorded as pregnant in Paraguay in 2014, and the real figure could be much higher.

Absolam wrote: »

Not sure how the real figure could be much higher? The article says 'were recorded as giving birth', are you suggesting that more would be recorded as giving birth if there wasn't an abortion ban?

Ah, the problem here is either a simple misreading or else a pretty simple strawman.

PopePalpatine references 700 girls of 14 or under recorded as pregnant, then offers the conjecture that the real figure (of pregnant girls under 14) could be much higher.

Absolam takes the suggested notion (that the figure could be higher) and applies it to a different value - 'girls recorded as giving birth', and argues against that notion (using legitimate arguments it has to be said).

However PopePalpatine's conjecture is absolutely valid given that the set of girls who give birth (article references 700) must be a subset of (or be exactly the set of) those who were pregnant, as it is not possible for someone to give birth without ever being pregnant.

Either Absolam has misread PopePalpatine's post and has unintentionally argued against a notion that was not offered, or they have intentionally misrepresented that post.

In either case, I don't think a claim against PopePalpatine's actual conjecture has been registered once, and I don't think it can.

PopePalpatine

Is it too much of a logical leap to infer that in a country which bans abortion except when the mother's life is at risk, that the large majority of teenage pregnancies result in either birth or miscarriage?