Argentina: Hospitals Refused for Months Abortion to a Raped 11 Year Old
This happened in 2019 but the ramifications are now spilling out. The eleven year old had been raped by her grandfather. As soon as her pregnancy was apparent an abortion was requested. Abortion is not legal in Argentina except for the usual things like life of the mother. Hospitals debated, delayed and could not decide. I'm sure discussion was, "That too bad about the 11 year old. But we must save her baby, blah, blah, blah.." Later a C-section was performed and, as I understand, the fetus did not survive.
This woke up voters across Argentina to the fact anti abortion politics is filled with crazies. New abortion rights political people were elected and a vote is coming up that may legalize abortion. Argentina is the second largest South American country and the thinking is several others would follow if it made abortion legal.
According to the New York Times a coming Senate vote puts legalized abortion within reach. Some members have not revealed their intention. Two are ill and may not vote. The country's Vice President who presides over the Senate converted to support abortion rights. The President campaigned for abortion rights and won. What a step forward this would be for women and men in Argentina if abortion rights were to pass.
I read officials in Argentina estimate approximately half a million illegal abortions take place in the country each year. As is the case in every country where abortion is not legal, it is easier to get an abortion if a woman lives in a prosperous urban area and all but impossible in poor rural areas. Laws against abortion never stop abortions but instead make availability less even across societies. And, they are more dangerous. Before Roe I know personally women from North Dakota who traveled to states such as New York to get abortions. Laws that make poor people poorer and rich people richer are ridiculous.
The Senate in Argentina nearly voted to approve abortion two years ago. This time it appears closer. Even if it does not quite make it I'm guessing abortion rights will one day soon arrive in Argentina.
"....as I understand, the fetus did not survive."
ReplyDeleteJon, the current acceptable spin word is POC (Product of Conception), not fetus. You are dating yourself. The correct terms need to be employed when an elderly white man weighs in on these female issues. Of course, there is a 50% chance this could also be a male issue.
As a side note, where was this girl's right to privacy? Her pro-choice parents did not seem interested in this. I thought right-to-privacy was the crux of the issue that trumps all?
Henry -- I'll just mark you down as opposed to abortions for eleven year olds who are raped.
ReplyDeleteAbortion rights passed in Argentina. The vote was by a larger margin than predicted, 38-27. This even after the Pope made a last minute plea about "babies." Protestant preachers had united with priests to put the heat on.
ReplyDeleteSome Senators who had previously voted to retain abortion prohibition changed their votes this time. One woman said, "My position on abortion has not changed. There are just too many deaths from illegal and unsafe abortions."
Her statement sums up the issue. One hundred years ago there was an experiment in the U.S. to outlaw alcohol. The experiment failed. Drinking just kept on like it did before.
Experiments in outlawing abortion have had the same result. Abortions just keep going on. The only thing that changes is who does them and where they are done. It might be time for anti abortion activists in the U.S. to face this reality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/world/americas/argentina-legalizes-abortion.html
Jon, how long after birth does a child have a right to live? It seems the liberals in elected offices are pushing for something akin to 4th trimester "abortion". How about how late in the third trimester? Of a healthy baby and a healthy mother, you know, the mothers who don't want to be burdened by caring for anyone but themselves? And what are the acceptable means for killing a baby 1 week from its due date? Is it poison? Is it decapitation? Is it dismemberment followed by the Hoover vacuum? Just how much compassion is running through your veins?
ReplyDeleteMatt--"Just how much compassion is running through your veins?"
DeleteI've been asking you and other anti abortion zealots here the same question but have not received any answer. Outside of the dangerous procedure of giving birth, what rights would the pregnant woman have if abortion is outlawed? If she said she lost the fetus by a miscarriage would she be able to say no if police wanted to see her cell phone or computer correspondence? If she told a friend in confidence she did was unhappy with the pregnancy could she prevent this information from being used against her by police if they learned of the comment? Wondering.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTSM: Jon is in favor of abortion (child sacrifice) from the moment of conception through the time before the umbilical cord is cut after birth, using any method, whether the child feels pain or does not feel pain, whether the child is medically perfect or has a birth defect, whether the father is weeping in law enforcement chains for the birth of his son or daughter, whether or not the parents of a minor child are consulted, and I'm sure I missed some of Jon's philosophy of death.
ReplyDeleteMatt, TSM "not to dump evasive sophistry..."
DeleteSince you are in a trap and can't find an escape door you call the question I ask "evasive sophistry." If you cannot tell readers what rights a pregnant woman has before the law in a no abortion country there is but one conclusion: She has no rights.
This is why women are breaking down barriers to abortion. If you and other zealous anti abortion pundits would come to grips with the political reality that women ultimately will call the shots on this you might have more influence on the ultimate outcome.
Several dozen times a year I explain my views on when a human being's "life" begins. This is a societal decision, not a religious one. The woman and her doctor are the ones who should have the authority to decide if she should proceed with an abortion. What I am confident about is that one fertilized cell is not a human being.
"The woman and her doctor are the ones who should have the authority to decide if she should proceed with an abortion."
DeleteIsn't that what happened with the case in Argentina? But, that is not good enough in your view. You are conflicted.
Jon is getting close to censoring posts. If my next post does not appear, it is because Jon deleted it or just didn't approve it. It's interesting where a party to a discussion or argument can simply silence his critics. Which communist regimes does that remind one of?
DeleteIt is brazenly transparent; Jon does not wish to argue his indefensible position. Instead, it always boils down to a pregnant woman/minor and her abortionist. I wonder where the abortionist falls on the decision? Or where he will counsel his paycheck, sorry, client?
Let's discuss women's "rights". Rights are those which are enumerated in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, according to Law 101. There is nothing in either dealing with sub-categories of pregnant, not pregnant, IQ, college degree, etc.
DeletePeople have legal protections, i.e. codes of the federal, State and lower governmental bodies. Legal protections can be changed much, much easier than rights. In fact, some rights are deemed to have emanated from a Creator, and are not subject to any change, e.g. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson argued for property rights but 'pursuit of happiness' was chosen, instead.
Let me refer to my esteemed legal expert, Perry Mason, and an argument he once used. I will change it to make my point to Jon's simplistic arguments.
We know that cells split in half every X seconds, approximately. Let's start with a newborn baby with 49.4 tera cells, about 10 to the 15th power. How many cell divisions did it take to get to that many cells?
Better yet, is that baby a human being when it has half as many cells, i.e. 24.7 tera cells?
Is that baby a human being when it has 12.35 tera cells? 1 tera cells? How about 100,000 billion cells? 100,000 cells? 100,000 cells? 100 cells? 2 cells?
Estimates for 30-40 year-old people indicate a drop in the number of cells to 1% of when the person was a newborn. Hmmm, only 1% of its former self. It seems there is a stronger case for aborting 30 year-olds than 3rd trimester babies!
Long before there was law, there was science, biological science. There were 49.4 tera cell newborn babies. Jon would like to have us believe that personhood depends on the current law. Convenient if your name is Mao, Stalin, Lenin or Hitler. Then killing people you don't legally recognize is .... legal. But are they members of the great club known as human beings?
History is rife with people who bastardized the laws to fit their sick agendas. Blacks weren't people according to some so killing them was not against the law. Property can be destroyed by the owner, correct?
So, Jon thinks 1 fertilized egg (cell's don't get fertilized, right?) is not a human being. He's confident about that. So, how about when the zygote cell subdivides into 2? Is that a human being? 4? 8? 16? 32? 64? 128? 256? 256? 512? 1024? 2048? 4096? 8192? ...... 10,000,000,000,000,000?
What we do know is easy. A health zygote quickly grows. It develops DNA separate from the mother or the father. By the time a woman even suspects she is pregnant, she has DNA of a separate human being in her body, growing in her womb. If one believes that a human being is (1) alive, and (2) has a unique DNA, then wherever she goes, that other person, her offspring, is right with her.
So, why would any third party with an interest in killing that defenseless life have any say in the perpetuation of that life? The abortionist makes no money for a birth.
Conclusions. Jon denies basic science. Jon denies basic definitions of human life. Jon is for the murder of unborn life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm -- "it seems for Jon, biology has nothing to do with determining who is human and who is not."
DeleteYou, like Matt and Henry, are really shifty and devious about science. You ignore completely that for most of a pregnancy the fetus would die if it were not part of the mother's body. "Science" then is telling us the mother has the right to remove that part of her body. If she had a tumor she has the right to have that removed.
All this shows how religion can take over minds and make minds dysfunctional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm "if the baby were neglected by its mother after birth it would die. so what's your point?"
DeleteSorry, but once a baby is born it is no longer part of the mother's body. That's my point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJon:"You, like Matt and Henry, are really shifty and devious about science."
DeleteJon, I am really advocating to save lives. It doesn't matter if it is a gay priest visiting their favorite steambath or a baby. Life should be respected. Killing the baby's life does not correct the wrong, nor does that action rehabilitate the victim back to normal. Aborting everything in sight brings increased chance of sterility and irretrievable psychological loss for the victim. They are further victimized.
It is actually your science that is in question: A doctor's scrawl on a piece of paper determining whether a clump of cells is human or not. That is not very scientific.
Henry "Jon, I am really advocating to save lives."
DeleteNo you are not. Childbirth takes more lives per 1000 than does abortion. Advocating childbirth instead of abortion is to advocate more deaths of women.
Well, there you go again, Jon. An abortion is almost 100% lethal to the target human. The exception is the target human who survives a botched abortion. Abortionists generally despise these people who survived an abortion.
DeleteHenry-- "Isn't that what happened in Argentina?"
ReplyDeleteThere was a seven week delay by church officials, clinics, etc. She had to have a cicirian surgery. So, no, that is not what happened.
Jon, tsk....tsk. Naughty, Naughty. Here is the relevant material from YOUR supplied article:
Delete"Reproductive rights groups filed emergency lawsuits that led to a court order instructing the hospital to carry out an abortion at once. Yet, doctors there refused, declaring themselves conscientious objectors."
So, not only was the Argentine situation originally between the patient and their doctor, but the later following external intervenors was the PRO-CHOICE LOBBY. It wasn't the church officials delaying things. IT WAS THE DOCTOR in consultation with the patient. That is what you originally wished for! Here, I will help you out. Here is what you already said:
Jon:""The woman and her doctor are the ones who should have the authority to decide if she should proceed with an abortion."
You are still conflicted. However, you fit in well with the current era of the-ends-justifies-the-means. Ethics be damned.
Henry "You are still conflicted."
DeleteA decision between the patient and her doctor assumes a doctor or medical system not corrupted by religion or money. Another poster wrote that abortions will not be available everywhere in Argentina even with a more liberal law. Rural areas run by clergy or doctors who need bribes may not see many more abortions. With the past law prohibiting abortions there were still an estimated 500,000 per year. For whatever reason, countries with anti abortion laws have more abortions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJon:"Rural areas run by clergy or doctors who need bribes may not see many more abortions. With the past law prohibiting abortions there were still an estimated 500,000 per year."
DeleteThere seems to be no evidence of that. ".....may not see......estimated......." Now, public policy has to be based on lack of evidence.
Henry--"no evidence of that."
DeleteCorrect, the precise number of abortions in Argentina has to be estimated because it is illegal. The number of medical cases caused by botched abortions is based on medical records, accurate data. Deaths of women who entered the hospitals with these failures is of course known well. According to what I read, the sick and dead women data are large enough to be of concern nationally. At least of few of those politicians changed their positions from against abortion to legalized abortion cited illnesses and deaths of botched abortions as the reason.
Decades ago, there was a Episcopal priest who was had jobs downtown. He told me he had been opposed to Roe until he was a hospital chaplain in Milwaukee. An entire wing was devoted to young women recovering from illegal abortions. He changed his mind.
Playing the game of not knowing the number of abortions because abortions are illegal so numbers cannot be reported is a game you religious folks like to play. Another version was "there aren't many gay people because I never see gay people." Being known as gay meant being fired, beaten up and whatever. The rest of us are finally on to this.
Jon:"Another version was "there aren't many gay people because I never see gay people." Being known as gay meant being fired, beaten up and whatever. "
DeleteActually, that used to be a democrat thing. Look at Ray Cohn. Part of the backlash and whisper campaign the democrats loosed onto him to destroy him was, "Did you hear? Ray is gay". Yeah, the party of diversity. Give me a break.
Henry "Look at Ray Cohn."
DeleteNever heard of Ray Cohn. Do you mean Roy Cohn, one of Trump's fixers?
The democrats treated ROY terribly.
DeleteHenry "The democrats treated ROY terribly."
DeleteThat's funny. When he had AIDS Trump cleansed himself frantically after a visit. When he died he owed the IRS so much they took every asset he had, save two diamond cuff links Trump had given him. Later it was found they were fake diamonds.
So, are you a charter member of the Roy Cohn Foundation dedicated to doing good works for a better society?
Matt--"Jon denies basic science."
ReplyDeleteFor the umpteenth time, science does not tell us when a human life begins. There is no peer reviewed publication anywhere where a bonified scientist has determined when a human life has been established. And, for the umpteenth time as well, if abortion is murder tell us how women who claim to have had miscarriages will protect themselves from law enforcement investigations of their private and personal lives. I'd appreciate a direct answer rather than gobbbledygook.
tsm "false analogy"
ReplyDeleteActually, it is not. Only with religion can one claim one fertilized cell is a separate human being.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm "..at work, no purpose..."
DeleteThat is essentially correct. No human egg is fertilized nor did humans evolve for some greater purpose other than it just happened. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE, knows some day the sun will explode, the earth will explode or it will be hit my a meteor and we will be gone. There are others, in religion for example, who make a living telling us we have some greater purpose, like to serve a god.
Don't forget your tithe in 2021. Your Pope is counting on you.
Got it. The decision to abort or live is only to be made between a (pro-abortion) woman and her (pro-abortion) doctor. If the doctor is pro-life, he is corrupted by religion or money. If the doctor is for abortion, he is as incorrupt as an unborn baby in his mother's womb. Since money one of your corrupting influences, the pro-abortion doctors must be offering their services free of charge.
ReplyDeleteAnd if women die at a higher rate from childbirth than abortion, then the only responsible thing to do would be to abort all babies. I ran the math and humankind would be extinct in about 60 years.
BTW, everyone alive today, including you and your wife, chose birth over abortion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNote: The only commenters on this thread are Jon, Henry, tsm and me. Henry, tsm and I seem aligned on the issue of abortion while Jon is the lone promoter of death.
ReplyDeleteMatt-- "Jon is the lone promoter of death."
ReplyDeleteYes, I seem to be the lone promoter of death of the fetus from an 11 year old who was raped by Grandpa. Even though out voted I'll stick to my position.
Comment censored.
ReplyDeletein the hope that this may be the end of this thread, one last comment. I can sort of understand a
ReplyDeletewoman's (and/or a father's) utilitarian reasons for aborting a child. can't afford another one, the boy friend left me pregnant, the affair down the street went awry, etc. you know the lingo. abortions of this type are fundamentally an act of a self-referenced will. (the fact that the decision was an agonized one aside: one can agonize about robbing a bank but must nevertheless suffer the consequences of bank robbery). but does that explain the hysteria often found in the screeds of those who support abortion (and who have, as they say, no dog in the fight). seems to me that there is a kind of unholy glee that often accompanies support for unlimited abortion. or a kind of anti-human sentiment that one finds in folks like George Soros and many others. mankind is the enemy; here are too many of us, etc. again you know the lingo. so a question: how are we to explain the pro-abortion phenomenon as it manifests itself among its most fanatical partisans. is it, at root anti-Christian bigotry? yes. but I think that it goes deeper than that: it seems to be a revolt against the natural order of things, a deep seated hatred of humanity, a kind of philosophical nihilism hiding behind a curtain of "rights'", compassion or whatever. which is to say that it is ultimately metaphysical.
tsm "is it, a root anti-Christian bigotry? yes...."
ReplyDeleteI would not have posted this but I know it took you a long time to write it and you would be disappointed were I to trash it. But, it has so much incorrect and misleading propaganda in it I must respond.
Neither abortion rights nor abortion prohibition is "Christian." The Bible does not condemn abortion.
And, you revert back to your old assumption the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the woman, "...a revolt against the natural order of things." Humans have practiced population control since they have been here. At least we know it was practiced in subsistence societies studied in modern times. They had to do this because food would support only a finite number of people. So was this "unnatural?" It is "natural" to want to survive.
And, you continue to avoid addressing how laws will handle miscarriages when a missing body requires investigation. Until you address this you are just blowing smoke.
why didn't you trash it? that's what I expected you to do. you are really hung up on miscarriages. to me that's just a big red herring. as to practicing population control, maybe you could tell us what specific studies that you have in mind. anyway so population control is"natural" so for that matter is slavery, human sacrifice and what not. good for you, Scripture does not explicitly condemn abortion. OK, I suppose that that is literally true. but not everyone is a silly literalist like you. and finally, there is no doubt in my mind that pro-abortion fanaticism can be explained in part by anti-Christian bigotry. hope you trash this.
Deletetsm "..miscarriages. to me that's just a big red herring."
ReplyDeleteThat's because it is not in the Catholic playbook. If you can't look up a solution to a dilemma then just refer to it as a "red herring." Where were you when the subject of complex dilemmas was taught?