Catholic church condones child rape and is against the abortion that will save her life

[loinburger]

It's possible to find a submissive wife so long as you can afford enough leather

[Dr Strangelove]

That's not what you said earlier. You said earlier that you 'believed' this to be the case. Where's the evidence for this?

I can say it with utter certainty. Adolescence and fertility usualy begin between the ages of 12 and 13 in girls. If you were to construct a curve of the onset of menarche the first standard deviation on either side would be between the 12 and 13th birthdays, that means that fewer than 17% of girls younger than 12 are capable of conceiving. That fact alone means that at least 80% of the sample population would be older than 10 and 11. Furthermore let me point out that the age of the girl in question wasn't in the same age range as the girls in Grupo Curumim's study. They were 10 to 11, she was 9.

Do you have evidence to support your contention that there would be significant differences in terms of maternal mortality between the 10 and the 11 years olds, as between the 13 and 14 year olds?

You mean you're so isolated that you've never seen girls in this age range? For one thing the average 9 year old is half the weight of the average 14 year old. The average 9 year old weighs about 60 pounds. On the average a twin pregnancy is going to add 30 pounds to a girl's weight, counting the weight of the fetuses, the amniotic fluid, the placenta and the enlarged uterus. If you don't believe that 9 year olds are different than 14 year olds, why not ask Guynemar? He's a pediatrician.

Well, then since we don't know where her pain is coming from, we should abort her so that she'll no longer have pain. Is this medicine?

[B]We[B] don't know where her pain was coming from, but perhaps her doctor did? In two places the article states that the abortion was performed to save her life, but we're not told why the girl was in pain. Perhaps the doctor had reasons not stated in the news. We don't really know do we?

[Dr Strangelove]

Hey Guynemer. Ben wants to know if 9 year olds are different from 14 year olds, particularily in matters of reproductive health. Would you kndly lend your expert pediatric opinion in this matter?

[Asher]

[Ming]

Why bother... Ben has never let facts get in the way of his rants... He will just ignore the facts, claim it's all God's will, and continue to make stupid arguments/statements.

[Guynemer]

Hey Guynemer. Ben wants to know if 9 year olds are different from 14 year olds, particularily in matters of reproductive health. Would you kndly lend your expert pediatric opinion in this matter?

They different, yo.

I'm afraid any attempt at a deeper analysis would simply confuse the poor lad.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can say it with utter certainty.

Ok. So where's the empirical evidence thereof that the children who bear children at this age are at a greater risk of dying than the average? There seems to be considerable professional disagreement over this. See, I'm an empiricist. Everyone 'knows' certain facts to be true. But an empiricist requires proof beyond, "I say it should be thus". I'm already citing a obstetician, who's speciality is caring for pregnant woman, I should think she should know what she is talking about.

Adolescence and fertility usualy begin between the ages of 12 and 13 in girls.

Down from around 15-16 from back in the 50's.

If you were to construct a curve of the onset of menarche the first standard deviation on either side would be between the 12 and 13th birthdays

And rather sharply so. Less than 10 percent before 11, and 90 percent before 13. So 12 is about right these days.

That fact alone means that at least 80% of the sample population would be older than 10 and 11.

I'm not disputing this fact, what I am disputing is your argument that because the overall sample averages out to be X, that the sample of children that are younger than 11, have significantly higher chance of dying than those who are older.

See, the sample isn't 'polluted', if there is no substantive differences between the age groups. What you've said here actually gives insufficient information to prove your case.

Furthermore let me point out that the age of the girl in question wasn't in the same age range as the girls in Grupo Curumim's study. They were 10 to 11, she was 9.

True, and she had twins. She's already an outlier of an outlier. Even so, you have an obstetician putting her professional reputation on the line saying that even for the outlier of an outlier that she can deliver safely with adequate care. So to me, if X can be done safely than X/10 can also be done safely. This is simple common sense...

You mean you're so isolated that you've never seen girls in this age range?

Yes, I'm aware of the developmental differences. I'm asking you again - is there any empirical proof that there are significant maternal mortality differences between the two? Citing that they have development differences, ergo, they are more likely to die - well, that's not what the actual statistics are showing. If developmental differences were the substantial factor, then we should expect to see that the death rate for the 13 and 14 year olds to be higher. But, we see the exact opposite.

Clearly, the most substantial factor concerning maternal mortality for these young girls is not developmental differences, but the quality of the care. If this is true, then it should be possible to deliver her safely with sufficient care.

If you don't believe that 9 year olds are different than 14 year olds, why not ask Guynemar? He's a pediatrician.

My contention is not that they are the same, my contention is that developmental differences are not the most important factor here. I'm arguing that the evidence seems to suggest that the quality of care is more important.

I'm not even saying that the developmental differences are unimportant either. I'm saying, it can be done safely if precautions are taken.

[B]We[B] don't know where her pain was coming from, but perhaps her doctor did? In two places the article states that the abortion was performed to save her life, but we're not told why the girl was in pain. Perhaps the doctor had reasons not stated in the news. We don't really know do we?

Well, if your best argument is that 'we don't know why she was in pain,' then that's insufficient evidence in favor of your position that the abortion was done in order to treat her pain. If the doctor was willing to cite her pain as evidence in favor of the abortion (which the article does), he leaves out the very crucial assessment as to what precisely was causing her pain. Nor does he provide alternatives to abortion that would treat her pain, and give us a discussion as to why he chose not to take these avenues.

"We don't know why", is simply insufficient.

[Ben Kenobi]

SO a pediatrician's word here is more substantive than the word of an obstetician? If authority is the basis of your arguments, surely you can see why I wouldn't be convinced by that argument.

[kentonio]

1) No-one gives a **** what you're convinced by.
2) Only someone truly stupid would sit with no medical experience and tell two doctors that they don't medically know what they're talking about.

[Ben Kenobi]

2) Only someone truly stupid would sit with no medical experience and tell two doctors that they don't medically know what they're talking about.

So the fact that I'm citing a professional has no bearing on your opinion?

[kentonio]

Yes, the fact you're picking some random **** of the internet without knowledge of that doctors biases and even the full context of his comments and saying that carries more weight than two qualified professionals who actually know what the **** their talking about is frankly retarded.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, the fact you're picking some random **** of the internet without knowledge of that doctors biases

As opposed to Guynemer and Dr. Strangelove who support abortion? If we're arguing bias - then their confirmed bias in favor of abortion isn't exactly helping you.

and even the full context of his comments and saying that carries more weight than two qualified professionals who actually know what the **** their talking about is frankly retarded.

As opposed to a lady obstetician who 'actually knows the **** she is talking about? It's a her, Kentonio. Thanks for confirming you never actually read what she had to say. Or perhaps ladies aren't really professionals who say things that matter?

[loinburger]

Ben, do you think that an abortion could ever be medically necessary to save the life of the mother? Would this morally justify an abortion?

[Asher]

As opposed to a lady obstetician who 'actually knows the **** she is talking about? It's a her, Kentonio. Thanks for confirming you never actually read what she had to say. Or perhaps ladies aren't really professionals who say things that matter?

Let's be clear here, Ben.

You continually fixate on one sentence from one doctor in one country who was not involved on the case. What she said was:

Dr. Elizabeth Kipman Cerqueira, a Brazilian obstetrician, said in a public statement on the case that "I don’t know anyone who died because of the young age at which she was impregnated, if she received adequate accompaniment,"

So her ignorance doesn't mean she thinks the mother would be unharmed. She's saying she doesn't know of any cases. To be sure, very few people can think of cases where 9 year olds deliver twins. I dare you to even cite one other. Hell, she couldn't even do it.

You need to stop claiming she says the girl would've been fine. That is not at all what she said, and her medical opinion is definitely in the minority - even amongst obstetricians.

Oh, and minor conflict of interest. She's a devout Catholic who represented the interests of the Church before the Brazilian Supreme Court.

FURTHER STILL, in her full public comment even she never said the girl could carry the fetuses (fetii?) to term.

She thought that at 22 weeks they should've "induced labour".

[Asher]

For the record, the chance of survival at 22 weeks is 0-10% and those that do survive have chronic health problems and disabilities.

Many hospitals and medical associations even have policies not to attempt resuscitation at 22 weeks.
http://www.dpi.org/lang-en/resources/details?page=760

[Asher]

Let's go find more random obstetricians. This one trumps the no-name devout Catholic Brazilian one by being a professional of obstetrics and gynecology at a reputable American university.

http://news.yahoo.com/doctors-appall...103804810.html

Doctors Appalled By 10-Year-Old Giving Birth

A 10-year-old girl in Colombia recently gave birth via caesarian section, placing her among the youngest mothers in the world. Though the girl is now recovering, her case highlights the dangers of pregnancy before maturity, doctors say.

"No 10-year-old anywhere in the world should be having a baby," Lewis Wall, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, told LiveScience.

According to Good Morning America, the 10-year-old girl, a member of the Wayuu tribe in Manaure, Colombia, delivered a 5-pound (2.26 kilogram) baby girl. The age of the father is not known, but Colombian police reportedly cannot press charges as the tribe is under its own jurisdiction.

The obvious risks of such an ordeal are mental, Wall said.

"Any 10-year-old who is pregnant has already been abused significantly by somebody," he said. "That probably should go without saying."

Nor are 10-, 11- and 12-year-olds remotely prepared to care for a baby, Wall said. But the risks are physical, as well.

"The placenta preferentially will take nutrition from the mother, who really is a child," said Sherry Thomas, an ob/gyn at Mission Community Hospital in Panorama City, Calif. That means that the developing fetus will leach calcium and other nutrients from a child who should still be growing herself. Likewise, pregnancy puts a major strain on the cardiovascular system, according to Wall. Pregnant women have about 50 percent more blood circulating through their bodies compared with non-pregnant women. [8 Odd Bodily Changes During Pregnancy]

The greatest danger, however, is to the pelvic floor. Girls may start ovulating and menstruating as early as age 9, though the average is around 12 to 13. (Some studies suggest that the average age of first menstruation is dropping, but the data is not conclusive.) Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.

The results are horrific, said Wall and Thomas, who have both worked in Africa treating women in the aftermath of such labors. Girls may labor for days; many die. Their babies often don't survive labor either.

The women and girls who do survive often develop fistulas, which are holes between the vaginal wall and the rectum or bladder. When the baby's head pushes down and gets stuck, it can cut portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. Women with fistulas are often divorced and shunned. And young girls are at higher risk.

"The younger you are, the more trauma will occur, because the pelvic floor isn't developed enough," Thomas said. In that way, she said, the young Colombian girl was fortunate to have access to a hospital that could provide a caesarean section.

As growth tends to slow in girls once menstruation starts, a 10-year-old capable of getting pregnant is likely to be especially small, with a small pelvis, Wall said. And even if puberty onset is happening earlier (Wall isn't entirely convinced by the current data), pelvises are certainly not maturing any faster, he said. If puberty does occur earlier, that would put young girls at risk for dangerous pregnancies for a longer period of time.

"It's heart-wrenching," Thomas said. "It's just overwhelming to see these young women pregnant and delivering."

Using logic (bear with me, Ben!!!!), we can assume that if he thought no 10 year old should be delivering a single baby, he also believes a 9 year old should not deliver twins.

[Asher]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, do you think that an abortion could ever be medically necessary to save the life of the mother? Would this morally justify an abortion?

Ectopic pregnancy is one such instance where abortion would be justified to save the life of the mother. At this point in time, you would have to remove that section of the fallopian tubes, and there is no way to save the child. So removing that section of the fallopian tubes to save the mother is justified.

[loinburger]

Ben's citation of doctors is pretty much equivalent to Creationists' citation of scientists. The vast majority of doctors agree that it isn't safe for a 9-year-old to bring twins to term, just as the vast majority of scientists agree that the universe is several billion years old. This is irrelevant. So long as a single doctor says that a 9-year-old could safely bring twins to term and/or that the 9-year-old's health is irrelevant, then Ben's beliefs are justified; so long as a single scientist says that the universe is 6000 years old then the creationist's beliefs are justified. The doctor/scientist doesn't even need to be real - so long as somebody hypothetically agrees with Ben, that's good enough.

[Ben Kenobi]

You continually fixate on one sentence from one doctor in one country who was not involved on the case.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm taking her professional opinion for what it is, her professional opinion. She says it can be done safely - then lets do that.

FURTHER STILL, in her full public comment even she never said the girl could carry the fetuses (fetii?) to term.

Well, here's a puzzler. Have I ever said that she should carry her children to term? I said quite early on that she should deliver by c-section at 25 weeks. By then the children will be robust enough to survive outside of the womb. That would have meant 9 more weeks where she would carry her children (after already doing so successfully for 16.

[loinburger]

Ectopic pregnancy is one such instance where abortion would be justified to save the life of the mother. At this point in time, you would have to remove that section of the fallopian tubes, and there is no way to save the child. So removing that section of the fallopian tubes to save the mother is justified.

Aside from ectopic pregnancy, could there every be an instance where abortion is needed and morally justified in saving the life of the mother?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben's citation of doctors is pretty much equivalent to Creationists' citation of scientists. The vast majority of doctors agree that it isn't safe for a 9-year-old to bring twins to term, just as the vast majority of scientists agree that the universe is several billion years old. This is irrelevant. So long as a single doctor says that a 9-year-old could safely bring twins to term and/or that the 9-year-old's health is irrelevant, then Ben's beliefs are justified; so long as a single scientist says that the universe is 6000 years old then the creationist's beliefs are justified. The doctor/scientist doesn't even need to be real - so long as somebody hypothetically agrees with Ben, that's good enough.

I also provided a citation that supports the conclusion of the Obstetician showing that girls 14 and younger are more likely to survive pregnancy than older woman. Why? Because they are rarer pregnancies, and they generally tend to get better support from doctors and medical professionals. So not only is the risk small, the risk is even smaller than usual, which is counterintuitive.

You're the one arguing the position contrary to empirical evidence, saying that feathers fall more slowly than rocks, just because Aristotle said so. Now if you have empirical evidence to back up your claim, go right ahead.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aside from ectopic pregnancy, could there every be an instance where abortion is needed and morally justified in saving the life of the mother?

Insofar as I'm aware? No. You can save the life of the mother and the child, so the conflict is not between saving one life rather than letting two die. This is why delivering by C-section is an option to save the life of mothers who may be at greater risk should the pregnancy continue - as in this case here.

I'm a big fan of taking the third option.

[gribbler]

Feathers do fall more slowly than rocks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Feathers do fall more slowly than rocks.

Galileo says hello.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY

[gribbler]

Galileo says hello.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY

Not the video I was expecting. I was expecting a video taken on the moon, where there's no air resistance and feathers and rocks actually do fall at the same rate. For the record, feathers still fall more slowly than rocks almost all of the time.

[loinburger]

Insofar as I'm aware? No.

Then there's really no point to citing Random Doctor - just say "I believe that abortion is unnecessary and immoral outside of an ectopic pregnancy" and then everybody will know that they should ignore you

[Ben Kenobi]

Then there's really no point to citing Random Doctor - just say "I believe that abortion is unnecessary and immoral outside of an ectopic pregnancy" and then everybody will know that they should ignore you

Why should I expect non-Catholics to find Catholic morality compelling? I'm not arguing we should do this because this is what the Catholic church teaches. I'm arguing we should do this because medical professionals say that this can be done to save the lives of her and her two children rather than killing them. You've presented a dilemma saying, "abort or die". You've got Spock saying that you should abort, to save the life of the one, and McCoy saying that she would die otherwise and Kirk saying, "Screw that, let's do this."

[Asher]

Well, I'm sorry. I'm taking her professional opinion for what it is, her professional opinion. She says it can be done safely - then lets do that.

She actually never said that.

She said she didn't know of any where the mother died. Which is hilarious because a quick google shows an example of many.

She is clearly incompetent and her opinion differs from virtually every obstetrician you could ask, including a professor in that field. She was a devout Catholic doing what devout Catholics do -- lie to defend the church, make up excuses for them, and exploit children with no remorse.

I wouldn't be surprised if she opined that raping children never killed them, so long as it was a priest. Something I'm sure you'd be quick to agree with.

[Asher]

FWIW, I don't know of any cases where a child died while being raped by a priest. Ergo, it must be safe to do so. [/Ben]