• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion

That's not what I said at all.



Honestly, I do know what you are trying to say. I think unless we are an aborted fetus, one that experienced an abortion, we can't know positively what it is like, or what is felt, no matter what we are told.

Sorry if I came across snarky.
 
Honestly, I do know what you are trying to say. I think unless we are an aborted fetus, one that experienced an abortion, we can't know positively what it is like, or what is felt, no matter what we are told.

Sorry if I came across snarky.

It's okay. I do it ALL the time. Especially in abortion threads. :2wave:

Welcome to DP.
 
No, you're just pathetically ignorant of history and the origins of your own religion.

"Puppet of his church". Not only does your ignorance know no bounds, but it is matched only by your penchant for being a droll little liar, too.

My education dwarfs yours by far. You are a servant of the Catholic establishment. Why do I say this? Because you don't have an opinion ... you have the opinion your church tells you to have.

This is the same fundemental issue I have with Islam and virtually every other organized religion.

When a penitent ceases thinking for himself and lets his church think for him, that man becomes a puppet.

Just because you lack the balls or the foresight or both to admit this fact, does not justify your ad hom attacks on me.

Shame on you.
 

Irrelevant.

The girl we're discussing was carrying twins. She would not have lived through the pregnancy.

The Catholic hypocrites responsible for excommunicating those involved in saving this child's life need to be de-frocked and excommunication for gross misconduct.

You can stop defending the stance of Adolf Poplar and his Nazi Brazilian buddy the Archbishop now.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant.

The girl we're discussing was carrying twins. She would not have lived through the pregnancy.
.

The point is not whether she would have lived, but whether the delivery of the twins could have been delayed to offer them a more likely chance at survival, or even if that was unlikely, delayed until the pregnancy was at a point where it was a threat ACTUALLY, rather than the potential threat that it was. Perhaps it never would have become an ACTUAL threat--though likely it would have. Simply wait until the course is clear, and then do what one must to protect the girl's life. As it was, the preemptive killing of the twins was not a moral imperative.
 
THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY....




Waiting longer could have given the babies a chance at life--even waiting 6 weeks would have dramatically improved their odds. The girl was already 15 or 16 weeks pregnant. If it became medically necessary, then it would be moral to defend the girls life against the threat of death, but at the point they aborted, that was not the case according to IMIP

With this information, the Bishop did the correct thing according to Catholic teaching. My guess is that the girl's mother wished to hide the fact that her husband is a scum-bag by aborting her grandchildren, and the pro-abortion pres/health minister/media et al are all using this tragedy to further their agenda. Sick--truly sick. That poor girl. With all these people USING her and publicising her personal tragedy, she will most definitely need the ministering of the Church in years to come.



No, Felecity, he did not.

Quit defending the idiotic, hypocritical actions of the Archbastard.

The girl was nine years old and pregnant THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN. This is SUFFICIENT CAUSE for an abortion EVEN IF ADOLF POPLAR DOESN'T LIKE IT.

Second, she WOULD NOT have survived the pregnancy. Her total body weight is 80lbs. Her uterus is not developed enough to carry ONE BABY let alone TWO BABIES!

Shame on you for making excuses for your church.

Truth be told --- I don't like abortion either but I am NOT going to accept that the Catholic church is willing to sacrifice the life a 9 year-old incest victim to save the products of rape.

It's disgraceful!

The Catholic church has behaved hypocritically and shamefully and the archbishop is a hypocrite. He attacked the parent of that girl and the doctors who saved her life because they chose to save the life of an underage rape victim.

This is HYPOCRISY on the part of the church. The archbishop is a DISGRACE. Adolf Poplar is former NAZI ASSHOLE!!!! NOW HE'S JUST AN ASSHOLE!!!!
 
Irrelevant. .
You said ...

Vader said:
There is not a 9 year-old female in this world who is physically developed enough to carry a child to term. .

You are simply wrong. :shrug: Apparently, a 5 year old can do it.
 
No, Felecity, he did not.

Quit defending the idiotic, hypocritical actions of the Archbastard.

The girl was nine years old and pregnant THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN. This is SUFFICIENT CAUSE for an abortion EVEN IF ADOLF POPLAR DOESN'T LIKE IT.
True--but the Bishop wasn't commenting on the legality--he was commenting on the Church's position on the matter--a MORAL position.

Second, she WOULD NOT have survived the pregnancy. Her total body weight is 80lbs. Her uterus is not developed enough to carry ONE BABY let alone TWO BABIES!
And again--perhaps an abortion would have become necessary to protect her life, but at the point they killed the twins, it was not a medical imperative.



Shame on you for making excuses for your church.
Quit your moralizing. You have no ethical standing with your bigoted bull**** spewed like a full bladder-ed two-year old in a warm draft.

Truth be told --- I don't like abortion either but I am NOT going to accept that the Catholic church is willing to sacrifice the life a 9 year-old incest victim to save the products of rape.
That's not what the Church is/was suggesting. You're pissing on a strawman.

It's disgraceful!

The Catholic church has behaved hypocritically and shamefully and the archbishop is a hypocrite. He attacked the parent of that girl and the doctors who saved her life because they chose to save the life of an underage rape victim.

This is HYPOCRISY on the part of the church. The archbishop is a DISGRACE. Adolf Poplar is former NAZI ASSHOLE!!!! NOW HE'S JUST AN ASSHOLE!!!!

And you're the voice of reason...:roll:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Civility a must! Live it, learn it, love it. Let's play nice folks.

Thanks for your cooperation.
 
You said ...



You are simply wrong. :shrug: Apparently, a 5 year old can do it.

Until there is REAL evidence that girl actually existed ... it's a myth.

You're still arguing in favor of a group of hypocrites. Shame on you.
 
True--but the Bishop wasn't commenting on the legality--he was commenting on the Church's position on the matter--a MORAL position.

And again--perhaps an abortion would have become necessary to protect her life, but at the point they killed the twins, it was not a medical imperative.

WRONG.

TWO SEPERATE DOCTORS AT THE 2ND HOSPITAL ... a HOSPITAL NOT FUNDED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STATED THAT IT WAS A MEDICAL IMPERATIVE.

You can keep preaching your catholic bull**** position all you want. You are wrong and the Catholic church, which violated its own code, is wrong.

Whether you or the Nazi pope who's bull**** ideas you're pushing like it or not; that child was not going to survive. Arguing that the doctors should have waited until the last seconds before she died to abort a pregnancy caused by gross incest is just plain IDIOTIC.

The church does not get to decide what is moral and what is not. They have their opinion... which happens to be the opinion of a Pope who was a Nazi during WWII.

The church acted hypocritically and should be publicly condemned for its actions.

Quit your moralizing. You have no ethical standing with your bigoted bull**** spewed like a full bladder-ed two-year old in a warm draft.

That's not what the Church is/was suggesting. You're pissing on a strawman.

Quit sticking up for the hypocrites who run your church. You're just proving that you're a good puppet.

And you're the voice of reason...:roll:

The Arch-Jackoff punished the mother of a rape victim because he and the Nazi who runs the Catholic church didn't like the fact that she chose to save her child's life. This is unacceptable to me. It is a retaliation tactic being used by the bullies in the Vatican.

It's hypocritical and absolutely unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
The point is not whether she would have lived, but whether the delivery of the twins could have been delayed to offer them a more likely chance at survival, or even if that was unlikely, delayed until the pregnancy was at a point where it was a threat ACTUALLY, rather than the potential threat that it was. Perhaps it never would have become an ACTUAL threat--though likely it would have. Simply wait until the course is clear, and then do what one must to protect the girl's life. As it was, the preemptive killing of the twins was not a moral imperative.

The point is ... you're making excuses. You're further victimizing a rape victim for the sake the doctrine of the Catholic church.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
This thread needs to go to the sewer.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Spewing the stuff that gets a thread dropped into the sewer does not single handedly cause it to go there, but it does cause a thread ban. Those that wish to have civil discourse about this may continue
 
Here is a Brazilian source translated (my bolding):
Pregnancy in 9-year-old girl in Brazil interrupted "Brazil Magazine: News & Reports live from Brazil




That backs up the Lifesitenews article.

Because the girl was raped, it was a "legal" abortion--however, legal is irrelevant to the moral stance of the Catholic Church. My source states that the 1st hospital indicated she was not in immediate danger--the version you are giving doesn't seem to be reported in my translated source and I can't read Portuguese! Can you find a translated source?


Well, I don't know what to tell you. You'll just have to trust me on this one because, unfortunately I don't have an English source for this. All the English articles I could find were published after the family switched hospitals. The funny part is also that I can't find any later Brazilian sources that state that IMIP wasn't going to perform the abortion.

The article I linked to earlier refers to IMIP, the first hospital the family dealt with ONLY and is titled "Catholic Church tries to prevent abortion of 9 year old carrying twins". This was before the second hospital was even in the picture. Why would they try to prevent an abortion if the doctors there weren't going to perform it to begin with? The article clearly states that the process for an abortion was initiated, including pre-abortion psychological counseling.

The article is very clear and even mentions the biological father by name. He's the one who got the church involved in this and they almost convinced the mother to not go through with the abortion which is why she agreed to ask the hospital to discharge the child. The hospital, following its policies in such matters, had no choice but to let her go seeing as her life was not in immediate danger.

Obviously the mother later changed her mind and looked for another hospital where the father's lack of consent was not an issue. What I'm a little concerned with is this: from what I've read in another article, a pro-abortion group contacted the mother and helped her get in touch with a clinic that would perform the abortion. It seems to me that everyone took advantage of everyone in this story. :(
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know what to tell you. You'll just have to trust me on this one because, unfortunately I don't have an English source for this. All the English articles I could find were published after the family switched hospitals. The funny part is also that I can't find any later Brazilian sources that state that IMIP wasn't going to perform the abortion.
(

From February 28--Brazilian source.
Brazil: Nine years of abuse, may abort twins "Brazil Magazine: News & Reports live from Brazil

The nine-year-old girl who in Brazil for years by her stepfather has been abused and now with twins in the 4th Months pregnant, the pregnant pause. This was announced by the competent Instituto Materno Infantil Professor Fernando Figueira (Imip) in Recife in the state of Pernambuco known. In the mother-child clinic, the young girls being medically and psychologically intensive care. According to the treating physicians is in the twin pregnancy an extreme health risk to the child. This therefore justifies a pregnancy interruption, which are otherwise under Brazilian law is strictly prohibited. The family of the girl has agreed to the surgery.

As the medical institute also announced today, Saturday, and that the nine-year-old a further ultrasound examination have been made. The girl was with the twins in the 15th Weeks pregnant. All necessary documents for a judicial authorization of abortion due to rape have been filed, however, is currently unclear whether any such arrangement was necessary. Presumed range from the medical indication for the surgery can legally carry.

And from March 4
Pregnancy in 9-year-old girl in Brazil interrupted "Brazil Magazine: News & Reports live from Brazil

The pregnancy of the nine-year-old girl in Brazil, which after years of sexual abuse by the stepfather was pregnant with twins, was this morning at a hospital in Recife interrupted. As the doctors treated stated that the approximately 4-month-old fetuses successfully removed and the uterus is cleaned. Were no complications occurred. The mother had only at the hospital were visited yesterday evening, after the doctors in another hospital had refused the surgery without judicial approval provided. The biological father of the child had previously shared with the Catholic Archbishop of Recife and Olinda against a demolition pronounced (more ...).

It appears that because the rape justified abortion according to Brazil law, the 1st hospital did file the paperwork. One must have judicial approval to get the abortion. However, the girl's mother removed her to another hospital that would perform the abortion before the judicial approval was granted. The Church's stance is that this needed judicial approval and that added time for judicial approval could have increased the twins chances at survival.

Now, you're (Arcana XV) reporting that pro-abortion advocates "helped" the mother procure an abortion for her daughter prior to judicial approval? For what other reason than to sensationalise this tragedy? The judicial approval was a sure thing! This poor girl met BOTH standards rape and medical necessity.

I know people want it to be the Big Bad Church's fault that this girl suffers, but it just isn't--the Church wanted the BEST outcome possible for all involved (including the twins)--but it was never going to be a "good" outcome. The abortion advocates sensationalised this and hurried the babies to their demise.
 
I found this as well:

http://http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901074.htm

Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife said the abortion was "a crime in the eyes of the church."

He told the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo that "it's true the doctor said the child ran (health) risks, but at any rate, the end does not justify the means. The good aim of saving her life can not justify the killing of two other lives."

So he does acknowledge that there were significant risks, but still refuses to admit that the doctors did the right thing. What would he have said if all three lives had been lost in the end?

Either this man is terrible at expressing himself, or he is looking at any possible reason to justify his initial position. This is a PR nightmare for the Church.

I have nothing against the Church's right to its stance on abortion. Their house, their rules. I do however think that this particular bishop is a horrible, horrible representative of the Church. Priests like him are what made me ashamed to say that I was a Catholic, back when I still called myself one. You can't possibly defend this man's handling of this situation. He could not have been more insensitive if he tried.
 
I lived in Brazil for approx. 6 months in 2005 and learned about its abortion laws during that time. If a doctor concludes that the pregnancy carries significant risk to the mother, then the doctor's order supercedes the public health authority's judiciary deliberations. As in this case, regardles of the judiciary's decision, a doctor concluded that the risk was unacceptable to the 9 year-old girl and ordered an immediate abortion. Under this mentality, the girl's life is already at risk now and the abortion becomes an emergency operative procedure.

The other stipulation is that any report of rape to the police by a pregnant rape victim, within the acceptable first trimester abortive window, grants the health authority permission to perform an abortion. The rape does not have to be proven in a court of law for an abortion to take place, as the stigma of rape in Brazil is still quite high so it is unlikely there would be false reports in order to seek abortions. All there needs to be is a police record on file.

A woman going to the police to report that she has been raped is a very difficult thing to do in most areas of the world, including the developed nations. Rape victims fear the stigma involved in revealing that they have suffered from sexual assault, especially in the post-traumatic period. In this case, the girl was young enough to warrant her family's involvement in the decision.

In any case, the girl met both criteria for abortion in Brazil. The political hoopla surrounding it is irrelevant. In addition, I would hope that DNA testing is performed on the aborted fetus to confirm that her scumbag stepdad raped her so that he can face the full bredth of the law.
 
I found this as well:

http://http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901074.htm



So he does acknowledge that there were significant risks, but still refuses to admit that the doctors did the right thing. What would he have said if all three lives had been lost in the end?

Either this man is terrible at expressing himself, or he is looking at any possible reason to justify his initial position. This is a PR nightmare for the Church.

I have nothing against the Church's right to its stance on abortion. Their house, their rules. I do however think that this particular bishop is a horrible, horrible representative of the Church. Priests like him are what made me ashamed to say that I was a Catholic, back when I still called myself one. You can't possibly defend this man's handling of this situation. He could not have been more insensitive if he tried.
For the most, I agree with you, but I can't help but give him (the bishop) the benefit of the doubt. It appears there is a political stand-off between the Church and those in Governmental power in Brazil, and as an American citizen having just experienced a changeover in political power, I am all too familiar with the use of the media to mold public opinion.

Perhaps the bishop's comments don't translate well--it is a very nuanced view. She undoubtedly would have been morally justified in being induced at a very early stage which likely would have resulted in the death of the twins--however, that necessity had not been reached yet according to the doctors at the 1st hospital, the father of the girl didn't want her to abort yet, the judiciary hadn't reviewed the case yet (a technicality, granted)...The Church ALWAYS errs on the side of life--there was nothing making this an imminent necessity except political propaganda by pro-abortion advocates seeking political gain at the expense of an abused little girl..
 
The other stipulation is that any report of rape to the police by a pregnant rape victim, within the acceptable first trimester abortive window, grants the health authority permission to perform an abortion.

The 1st trimester ends at 12 weeks. This girl was 15 or 16 weeks along. This was a 2nd trimester abortion. Does that affect the legality of doing this without judicial review of the case?
 
The 1st trimester ends at 12 weeks. This girl was 15 or 16 weeks along. This was a 2nd trimester abortion. Does that affect the legality of doing this without judicial review of the case?

Well in this case she had the doctor's consent for a therapeutic abortion, and my guess would be that that can extend beyond the 12 week period since saving the mother still takes priority. To what extent, I don't know. I tried looking up Brazilian law but my Portuguese is a little rusty these days.

I did find this interesting snippet, however:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=167#latinamerica said:
Abortion is legal in Brazil only in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger. Under federal regulation, hospitals require a formal determination that a pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest before performing an abortion. Many women in Brazil illegally use the drug Cytotec to induce miscarriage, and the government estimates that more than 200,000 Brazilian women are hospitalized annually as a result of botched abortions.

A perfect example of why keeping abortion illegal is only harming more people while ignoring human realities.
 
I did find this interesting snippet, however:


A perfect example of why keeping abortion illegal is only harming more people while ignoring human realities.

In the US, where abortion is legal, there are 1.3 million legal abortions. According to Guttmacher, .3% of those receiving legal abortions in the US have to be hospitalized due to supposedly "safe" legal abortions. Unless my math is wrong (and perhaps someone more confident with numbers should check me) that's almost 400,000--DOUBLE Brazil's. Where are more women harmed by "botched" abortions?
 
Last edited:
Well in this case she had the doctor's consent for a therapeutic abortion, and my guess would be that that can extend beyond the 12 week period since saving the mother still takes priority. To what extent, I don't know. I tried looking up Brazilian law but my Portuguese is a little rusty these days..


Right--after pro-aborts doctor shopped for her.;)
 
Back
Top Bottom