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

[Ben Kenobi]

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

That's not what she said either. She said she didn't know of any where the mother died with adequate care. If you're going to quote her, at least get it right.

She is clearly incompetent and her opinion differs from virtually every obstetrician you could ask

And how many years has she worked at her job? What qualifications do you have to assess her competency as an Obstetician? None? Quel surprise.

And yes, I could ask other obsteticians who would share her opinion. You seem to think I don't know any medical professionals.

including a professor in that field.

Oh, you mean the fellow who's gone to international conferences railing against abortion restrictions that limit his business of the past 13 years? No bias there, sirrah.

She was a devout Catholic doing what devout Catholics do -- lie to defend the church

As opposed to the fellow who's been doing abortions for 13 years, has a vested interest in turning this 9 year old into a test case to increase his business. Why do you think this case is getting so much publicity, Asher? They want to use this case to overturn nasty, nasty abortion restrictions. This girl is being used the same way Norma Roe was used. Bitter truth of the movement. Chew 'em up, spit them up, let other folks clean up the mess, because who cares what happens to her after she's aborted?

exploit children

The only one exploiting children, is the abortion doctor using this test case to remove abortion restrictions.

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.

Well, apparently putting words in other people's mouths is ok by you. Good to remember that for the future.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

Saying "I don't know any who died at a youg age" is quite different from saying "I don't know any who died at age 9." "Young age" could mean anything under 18 years old. Pregnancies at age 9 are so rare that most obstetricians will never encounter one in all their years of practice and gathering meaningful statistics would require a nationwide survey.
I run a walk-in open to Medicaid clinic, the only one within 100 miles. It's the 4th largest Medicaid practice in the entire state. Most Medicaid babies will come to my clinic for their 1 week check-up even if they've been assigned to a pediatrician for the rest of their care simply because practices in this area generally schedule appointments months in advance. I've cared for several thousand newborns over the years, as many as most of the obstetricians in town, the youngest mother I've ever seen was 12.

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.

Precisely, we only know what the news article reported, that he felt her life was in danger. If he had good clinical reason to believe that her life was in danger due to the pregnancy then at 16 weeks abortion would be the only option. You don't have enough evidence to contradict his judgement other than he's not a good Roman Catholic according to your standards. It seems that's enough to make him guilty.

[Asher]

Oh, you mean the fellow who's gone to international conferences railing against abortion restrictions that limit his business of the past 13 years? No bias there, sirrah.

Huh? The man makes zero dollars from abortions, why the **** would he have a bias?

As opposed to the fellow who's been doing abortions for 13 years, has a vested interest in turning this 9 year old into a test case to increase his business. Why do you think this case is getting so much publicity, Asher? They want to use this case to overturn nasty, nasty abortion restrictions.

How stupid do you think everyone is?

You keep making **** up blatantly.

http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/physician2.aspx?PhysNum=3013

Nowhere does it say anything about abortions in his areas of interest. Where did you get "13 years" from?

What's most fascinating is, from googling, he's most famous for this: http://publichealth.wustl.edu/people...ages/Wall.aspx

Dr. Wall’s academic interests are focused on disorders of the female pelvis, particularly childbirth injuries

Which seems to me he is specifically qualified to make a statement on the issue.

The only one exploiting children, is the abortion doctor using this test case to remove abortion restrictions.

Huh??? It was perfectly legal for the abortion to happen when it did. You're on some other ****ing planet.

Well, apparently putting words in other people's mouths is ok by you. Good to remember that for the future.

We all know your stance on women and children.

[Ben Kenobi]

Saying "I don't know any who died at a youg age" is quite different from saying "I don't know any who died at age 9." "Young age" could mean anything under 18 years old. Pregnancies at age 9 are so rare that most obstetricians will never encounter one in all their years of practice and gathering meaningful statistics would require a nationwide survey.

Part of my problem is that while you see pregnancy as a significant risk, I see surgical abortion as carrying a similar risk. It's not trading risk for no risk. It's trading one set of risks for an entirely different set of risks. I've seen studies showing elevated risk associated with surgical abortion for most women, so the risk is not negligable. If it is true that younger women are more likely to survive pregnancy, then it should also follow, that there would be greater risk differential associated with abortion.

Now, it may be that given the special circumstances of this case - a 9 year old with twins, would push the risk of carrying the child higher. But there are ways to manage this risk, and reduce the risk. That's part of your job as physicians.

If he had good clinical reason to believe that her life was in danger due to the pregnancy then at 16 weeks abortion would be the only option. You don't have enough evidence to contradict his judgement other than he's not a good Roman Catholic according to your standards. It seems that's enough to make him guilty.

He hasn't given good clinical evidence to support his contention that her life was in danger. That's my problem. See, I believe in Primum non nocere - the preponderance of evidence has to support surgical intervention. The default of "doing nothing" does not. Better to do nothing, and have it not work out than to do something and make it worse.

I run a walk-in open to Medicaid clinic, the only one within 100 miles. It's the 4th largest Medicaid practice in the entire state. Most Medicaid babies will come to my clinic for their 1 week check-up even if they've been assigned to a pediatrician for the rest of their care simply because practices in this area generally schedule appointments months in advance. I've cared for several thousand newborns over the years, as many as most of the obstetricians in town, the youngest mother I've ever seen was 12.

Several thousand, and you've not see one under 12? Odds are that you should have seen a few since they amount to about one in ten.

[Ben Kenobi]

Huh??? It was perfectly legal for the abortion to happen when it did. You're on some other ****ing planet.

Which is why the doctor quoted was in Johannesburg arguing against the restrictions of abortions that were present?

We all know your stance on women and children.

Killing them is wrong? Look, you love to make unfounded statements that I believe X and that I believe Y. It gets rather tiresome since you're arguing in such bad faith.

Yeah, I believe the girls in the womb should be protected like any other girl. I've written published articles arguing that sex selection abortion is wrong because it discriminates against women. Such position makes no sense if one doesn't believe that men and women are equal in value.

[MRT144]

You failed to answer the question, asher. How does getting an abortion treat the girl's physical and emotional trauma?

It prevents a lifetime of horrible reminders - rape babies. If you are so concerned about her well being offer her support now or STFU.

[MRT144]

Which is why the doctor quoted was in Johannesburg arguing against the restrictions of abortions that were present?



Killing them is wrong? Look, you love to make unfounded statements that I believe X and that I believe Y. It gets rather tiresome since you're arguing in such bad faith.

Yeah, I believe the girls in the womb should be protected like any other girl. I've written published articles arguing that sex selection abortion is wrong because it discriminates against women. Such position makes no sense if one doesn't believe that men and women are equal in value.

So then it's your catholic dogmatic belief that makes them unequal when it comes to church hierarchy and their value before God. Got it. You're a terrible person.

[Asher]

Which is why the doctor quoted was in Johannesburg arguing against the restrictions of abortions that were present?

Cite?

[Asher]

Part of my problem is that while you see pregnancy as a significant risk, I see surgical abortion as carrying a similar risk.

And the other part of your problem is you think they're remotely similar risks. They're not.

[C0ckney]

It gets rather tiresome since you're arguing in such bad faith.

ben you are, without doubt, the best troll on this site.

[Guynemer]

Several thousand, and you've not see one under 12? Odds are that you should have seen a few since they amount to about one in ten.

Wait, what?

What exactly is it that you think you are saying here, because as stated, it appears that you think 10% of all mothers are under the age of 12.

[kentonio]

I've written published articles arguing that sex selection abortion is wrong because it discriminates against women.

Writing a letter to the Catholic Weekly does not count as writing a published article.

[MRT144]

Writing a letter to the Catholic Weekly does not count as writing a published article.

POW.

[Ben Kenobi]

What exactly is it that you think you are saying here, because as stated, it appears that you think 10% of all mothers are under the age of 12.

We were discussing this earlier. About 1 in 10 of those who are mothers under 14 are themselves under 12. He should have seen a few by now.

[Ben Kenobi]

And the other part of your problem is you think they're remotely similar risks. They're not.

You're quite right.

Finnish study shows that women in general are four times as likely to die in the year after having an abortion as they are if they carry to term. Women who carry to term are actually less likely to die than women overall.

http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childbirth/

1. Gissler, M., et. al., “Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 — definition problems and benefits of record linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).