An interesting topic of conversation.

Seriously, Wardogg, you have no excuse for being on the side you are in the abortion debate. I know what you're referring to, and that's no excuse either.

And just what, pray tell, is this excuse I'm referring to?

Ooh, I love it when the jarheads get nasty!

And just what, pray tell, is this excuse I'm referring to?

I'm guessing, if I remember this correctly and it wasn't somebody else, that you are referring to the fact that you could have been aborted but your parents changed their minds. I'm not 100% sure if that was you or somebody else, but one anti-abortionist had that as an argument.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 08, 2009, 10:31:52 PM

And just what, pray tell, is this excuse I'm referring to?

I'm guessing, if I remember this correctly and it wasn't somebody else, that you are referring to the fact that you could have been aborted but your parents changed their minds. I'm not 100% sure if that was you or somebody else, but one anti-abortionist had that as an argument.

Besides the point.  What's your take on this?

I'm not asking to go to full term here. 

Here's a story about a baby surviving after just 22 weeks in the womb
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

This is what I was talking about when I said to lurk.  Its like you didn't even read the rest of the thread.

What's my take? Well, it's a wonderful thing that she survived and all, but what has that got to do with abortion?

Quote from: Wendy on March 08, 2009, 10:50:57 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 08, 2009, 10:31:52 PM

And just what, pray tell, is this excuse I'm referring to?

I'm guessing, if I remember this correctly and it wasn't somebody else, that you are referring to the fact that you could have been aborted but your parents changed their minds. I'm not 100% sure if that was you or somebody else, but one anti-abortionist had that as an argument.

Besides the point.  What's your take on this?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 07, 2009, 08:52:00 PM

I'm not asking to go to full term here. 

Here's a story about a baby surviving after just 22 weeks in the womb
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

This is what I was talking about when I said to lurk.  Its like you didn't even read the rest of the thread.

and this article justifies the churches actions how? And it justifies risking a 9 year old who's only sin was being molested's life how? Full grown women die delivering twins, and you think someone with the body of a nine year old could give birth to them?

Finally, why wasn't the father ex communicated? Siding with the church on this issue is completely barbaric. The only reason you could have to side with them is if you somehow believe pedophilia is ok. Now if you are willing to admit you are a pedophile I'll apologize.

Oh, mama...this is really getting good!

It's like they aren't even reading.



Here let's try this.



I NEVER SAID SHE SHOULD GO TO FULL TERM.  I WONDERED WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WERE LOOKED AT PRIOR TO THE ABORTION.  LIKE LEAVING THE CHILDREN IN FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS.  THEY MIGHT HAVE SURVIVED A PREMATURE BIRTH AT SAY, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE 22 WEEKS GESTATION.  LIKE WAS REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE.


Jesus fuck.

and this article justifies the churches actions how? And it justifies risking a 9 year old who's only sin was being molested's life how? Full grown women die delivering twins, and you think someone with the body of a nine year old could give birth to them?

Finally, why wasn't the father ex communicated? Siding with the church on this issue is completely barbaric. The only reason you could have to side with them is if you somehow believe pedophilia is ok. Now if you are willing to admit you are a pedophile I'll apologize.

As for the church shit, I have always said the Catholics are fucked up.  On multiple fronts.  Hell I didn't even know what excommunication was.

If you don't know anything about a subject don't comment on it. So was the 22 week birth done in Brazil? I'm not too sure they have the best pre or post natal care.

As for the rest, again, she shouldn't have to risk her life because of what her father did to her.

According to the New York Times, the girl only weighed 80lbs.  I really don't understand why the Catholic Church can't see that she would have died.  How can they chose two fetuses, that probably wouldn't survive anyway, over the life of a little girl?

According to the New York Times, the girl only weighed 80lbs.  I really don't understand why the Catholic Church can't see that she would have died.  How can they chose two fetuses, that probably wouldn't survive anyway, over the life of a little girl?

Because girls as young as 5 have been giving birth since 1939.

http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

In fact there have been several cases of five year olds giving birth.

That still doesn't make it right, or even have anything to do with this discussion. 

Apparently the little girl's stepfather is a real winner, he was molesting the girls physically handicapped 14yr old sister too.  What the fuck was the mother doing during all this? She deserves to be excommunicated but not for obtaining an abortion for her daughter. 

That still doesn't make it right, or even have anything to do with this discussion. 

Apparently the little girl's stepfather is a real winner, he was molesting the girls physically handicapped 14yr old sister too.  What the fuck was the mother doing during all this? She deserves to be excommunicated but not for obtaining an abortion for her daughter. 

How doesn't it?  Girls have given birth at younger ages and with smaller frames.  The doctors said they may have been a risk, but the Church doesn't agree.  Isn't that what this whole topic is about?

The Catholic Church sees any form of birth control as directly disobeying God.  For the doctors and the mother to do or ask for the abortion without clear evidence of fetus damage was not only murder in their eyes, but a serious sin, two of them.

The doctors broke the laws of their country and their religion.  I understand why they did it, there was a potential danger to the child, but they had to know that a shitstorm was going to fall on them.

Without seeing the medical records of the case, I will not make a judgment on if they were right to do it.  According to the article, the girl was having pains and doctors feared her frame was too slim to give birth.

Insufficient data to determine if they could have allowed the trimester to finish and gone for a cesarean or not. Personally, I do not believe in abortion, but I do think that women have the right to choose for themselves.  Just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean that I have the right to tell someone else that they can't do it.

The mother is completely unfit as a parent, but if the church tried to toss every unfit parent, there wouldn't be a lot of Catholics left.  That her kids should be taken from her I agree with, but her religion is a big deal only to her, her priest and her God.

The same goes for the Doctors.

The father ... well, if there is any justice, he'll be facing his God for judgment very soon.

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I wouldn't want to be part of any organisation that effectively endorses child rape.  Fuck the Catholic church if that's the attitude they take.

I wouldn't want to be part of any organisation that effectively endorses child rape.  Fuck the Catholic church if that's the attitude they take.

Where have you been for the last thousand years?

It's not like I've ever been particularly religious, nor is it like I'm saying anything radical here, but it's pretty well summed up by that statement I think.

I'm not too worried.  If the Church continues with this line of bullshit, they will eventually be deserted.  I wouldn't be complaining if the KKK kicked me out for being too non-racist.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2009, 11:51:49 AM

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.

I'm not too worried.  If the Church continues with this line of bullshit, they will eventually be deserted.  I wouldn't be complaining if the KKK kicked me out for being too non-racist.

XD

Can't breafff...

As for the topic at hand; this kind of stupid bullshit doesn't surprise me in the least. Catholics are notorious for being mindless heartless robots who put their god over any living being on this planet. I'd like to punch the idiot who said the life of a fetus (or two in this case) is more important than the life of a little 9 year old girl. In fact, I'd like to "abort" his organs and jam them back up his ass, along with his bible and tounge.


Deeply saddening. The very fact that these dipshits don't think raping a defensless little girl is as bad as an abortion makes me fart in disgust. I'm not exactly too keen on how they abort the fetuses, but goddamn it. It was more than necessary in this case.   

Fuck the catholic church. In fact, fuck religion in general.

The doctors broke the laws of their country and their religion. 

They didn't break the laws of their country. As the article said, its allowed in Brazil in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.

The age of consent in Vatican city is 12 years old. That makes me think, just a bit.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 09, 2009, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2009, 11:51:49 AM

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.

Raist, to say outright that they saved her life is as foolish as excomming them in the first place.

They gave an opinion that she could not survive to term.  Since C-section is the most common way to deal with a small frame, carrying to term is not going to happen.  And since technology can remove the baby as young as 22 weeks, they cannot make a valid argument that they had to do it, not that is valid for the Catholic Church.

That is why they were excommed... because they didn't even try to consider any other options before killing two beings.

I'm not saying I agree with either side in this case... but you cannot make blanket statements about either side either.

Except that they're all human.

I don't think an 80lbs 9 year old is that small, I shall weigh my 6 and 10 year old later and check for comparison.

Quote from: Raist on March 09, 2009, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 09, 2009, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2009, 11:51:49 AM

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.

Raist, to say outright that they saved her life is as foolish as excomming them in the first place.

They gave an opinion that she could not survive to term.  Since C-section is the most common way to deal with a small frame, carrying to term is not going to happen.  And since technology can remove the baby as young as 22 weeks, they cannot make a valid argument that they had to do it, not that is valid for the Catholic Church.

That is why they were excommed... because they didn't even try to consider any other options before killing two beings.

I'm not saying I agree with either side in this case... but you cannot make blanket statements about either side either.

Except that they're all human.

Don't forget were this is. Brazil. How good are there hospitals? The Doctors probably did save her life. Yes there is a chance she could survive but if it is one in a thousand I think you can say they saved her life.

Quote from: Raist on March 09, 2009, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 09, 2009, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2009, 11:51:49 AM

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.

Raist, to say outright that they saved her life is as foolish as excomming them in the first place.

They gave an opinion that she could not survive to term.  Since C-section is the most common way to deal with a small frame, carrying to term is not going to happen.  And since technology can remove the baby as young as 22 weeks, they cannot make a valid argument that they had to do it, not that is valid for the Catholic Church.

That is why they were excommed... because they didn't even try to consider any other options before killing two beings.

I'm not saying I agree with either side in this case... but you cannot make blanket statements about either side either.

Except that they're all human.

Except the problem is just not frame. Sustaining a child while weighing as little as she does would be very hard on her body. Two would be even worse.

So would it be incorrect for me to claim a doctor saved my life if he removed a potentially life threatening tumor? It would not necessarily have killed me, but it probably could have.

You also made the claim they broke the law, when the article expressly states that the doctors were in the right performing the abortion. The girl weighed 80 lbs, my mother was told she was at risk when she had twins because she only weighed 130. 13/8 of the child's weight.

There was no reason that they should have been excommunicated, and yet the father, the only real criminal in the whole situation was let off by the church. The only thing the cardinal had to say on the issue is God's law is higher than that of Man's law. Meaning he doesn't believe pedophilia is a sin.

Ok after some research and a weigh in at my house I found out this.

Average weight of a 6yr old female - 46.2lbs  my daughter 49.0
Average weight of a 10yr old female - 70.4lbs my daughter 53.0


80lbs wasn't as far off as I thought it was.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 10, 2009, 09:37:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 09, 2009, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 09, 2009, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 09, 2009, 11:51:49 AM

How many 5 yr old girls do you think have successfully given birth to twins?  How many 5 yr old girls have successfully given birth, period? I imagine most of them die.  None of that is relevant to this situation.  There are full grown women who die from giving birth.

There was enough evidence that the girl would die from carrying the twins to term or the doctors wouldn't have performed the abortion.  Brazil has very strict laws about it, and I doubt the doctors arbitrarily decided it was OK for this girl to have an abortion.  They stated that her uterus wasn't big enough for one baby, let alone two. 

@ Raist:  The danger that the doctors talked about was for carrying to term... she doesn't have to carry to term.  They could have taken the babies at 26 weeks, saving both the mother and the children.

As for the man... The priest is correct.  God made no laws about what he did, not that he could be excommed for.

Another thing I don't agree with, but I, who am not of their faith, cannot tell them how to run their business.

And when they did, they knew, or should have known that the Church would take a dim view of it.  If they decided that that girl was more important to them than their religion and are willing to stand by that decision, I applaud them.

I doubt they thought the catholic church would demonize them for it. Also would you please give us the survival rate of 9 year old girls who give birth? Then could you give us the rate of survival with twins? Just because it has happened does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

They saved the little girls life, the fact that the church interpreted the rules in such an unjust and draconian manner is shocking. The catholic church usually does allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the mother, and also I believe in cases of incest. The fact the vatican agreed with the cardinal is more political than dogma based and is a sign that the religion is not flawed but those that enforce it are not concerned about obeying it.

Raist, to say outright that they saved her life is as foolish as excomming them in the first place.

They gave an opinion that she could not survive to term.  Since C-section is the most common way to deal with a small frame, carrying to term is not going to happen.  And since technology can remove the baby as young as 22 weeks, they cannot make a valid argument that they had to do it, not that is valid for the Catholic Church.

That is why they were excommed... because they didn't even try to consider any other options before killing two beings.

I'm not saying I agree with either side in this case... but you cannot make blanket statements about either side either.

Except that they're all human.

Don't forget were this is. Brazil. How good are there hospitals? The Doctors probably did save her life. Yes there is a chance she could survive but if it is one in a thousand I think you can say they saved her life.

Actually, they have a very good health system there.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rsp/v41n5/en_5965.pdf

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/515  (May not view, was a college link.)

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=br&v=29

And their infant mortality rate is not that bad as the last chart shows.  The girl was already 15 weeks along.  If they can do a C-section at 24/26 weeks, they could have done it then tried to save those children, who had done nothing, and still been reasonably safe.

They allowed emotion to rule their actions.  Not always a bad thing, but in this case, they're all going to pay for it.