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

[MRT144]

By-the-by, I understand many states' treatment of criminal perverts (once they get out of jail) is sufficiently harsh that they essentially can't support themselves. Partly because everybody has to be informed, partly because they can't live or work within X distance of so many places that essentially every single inch is barred to them. Which is understandable, but if you're going to do that you might as well just leave them in jail; it's kinder to them and it pretty much guarantees they won't rape kids again.

so long as they aren't victims when they are in prison themselves I don't see the problem. Too bad prisons are not safe for prisoners.

[giblets]

Gosh, is that before or after Bubba gets finished with him. So the poor girl who got robbed of her childhood, is left recovering from rape, is supposed to feel sorry that the rapist might go back to jail because he has a hard time finding a job because people remember that he once raped a girl?

Hey life sucks.

She should feel upset about the fact that putting him back in jail eliminates the possibility that he will ever be able to make a child support payment. But hey, if life sucks I guess we might as well do stupid things to make it even worse.

[MRT144]

Gosh, is that before or after Bubba gets finished with him. So the poor girl who got robbed of her childhood, is left recovering from rape, is supposed to feel sorry that the rapist might go back to jail because he has a hard time finding a job because people remember that he once raped a girl?

Hey life sucks.

Wouldn't you like to alleviate some of the suffering in the world by ignoring dogmatic and idiotic beliefs to be more pragmatic?

[Elok]

If he does, he has biblical support:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Somebody already brought that up. As I told--Gribbler? Not gonna bother even to look up, whatever--in a society where women are chattel valued purely for their reproductive capacities, such a rule actually makes some kind of sense. If the woman is no longer eligible for marriage, she can't work for herself or find support except from her father. She's the equivalent of an orphan. It'd be better if they had a social safety net or what have you, but GTFO of here, it's ancient Israel. Making the guy support her forever is about the best you can hope for in that situation. The fifty shekels to the dad is simply lost income from the dowry he might have had. Not great, all in all, but considering that marriage for love was pretty well unheard of in that society (and for much of history), what are you going to do?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why are you continuing to do it? There must be a motive. Either you're really trying to convince people, or you're a simple troll. Are you just a troll?

Well, rah.

I'm deaf. I found Apolyton when I was younger, and it was the first time that I had a chance to actually talk to people without having to struggle with hearing them. I got considerable pleasure out of the discussions then, and getting a chance to meet cool people. Remember the comments that I made some time ago that I type far more than I actually speak? See, my life is not like yours and most Polytubbies don't get it. Some of the really cool folks here do, and that is why I am friends with them.

I used to debate for many years. I enjoy the back and forth, it keeps me sharp. I enjoy the sparring. Anyone who knows me in real life knows that I enjoy a good discussion and a good argument, so long as both sides understand that it's nothing personal.

I couldn't give a **** about whether Apolyton as a whole likes me. You stand up for what you believe and you fight for it as best as you can. I would expect nothing less from the Government seats. That's the purpose of the loyal opposition no?

[Elok]

so long as they aren't victims when they are in prison themselves I don't see the problem. Too bad prisons are not safe for prisoners.

Yeah, they're not, but going outside and starving in the streets (unless you re-offend) doesn't sound a whole lot better. Between the shanking and the starving, it'd be better to simply execute them. Which might happen. It's certainly far more likely than any elected official trying to win decent treatment for kiddy-fiddlers. Or even humane treatment for ordinary criminals, unless they were wrongly convicted. Jail is a hole where we throw people so we can forget about them. Sigh.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wouldn't you like to alleviate some of the suffering in the world by ignoring dogmatic and idiotic beliefs to be more pragmatic?

I agree, he should get two rest breaks with bubba. Hey, some people should get pleasure in prison.

[Ben Kenobi]

She should feel upset about the fact that putting him back in jail eliminates the possibility that he will ever be able to make a child support payment. But hey, if life sucks I guess we might as well do stupid things to make it even worse.

Why should she give a tinker's damn?

[giblets]

Why should she give a tinker's damn?

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

[Proteus_MST]

Somebody already brought that up. As I told--Gribbler? Not gonna bother even to look up, whatever--in a society where women are chattel valued purely for their reproductive capacities, such a rule actually makes some kind of sense. If the woman is no longer eligible for marriage, she can't work for herself or find support except from her father. She's the equivalent of an orphan. It'd be better if they had a social safety net or what have you, but GTFO of here, it's ancient Israel. Making the guy support her forever is about the best you can hope for in that situation. The fifty shekels to the dad is simply lost income from the dowry he might have had. Not great, all in all, but considering that marriage for love was pretty well unheard of in that society (and for much of history), what are you going to do?

Yep, I agree ... the bible passages are a sign of the times in which they were written (and in which they made sense) ...
the sad thing is, that there are still people who would really come up with passages like these, to defend misogynist views
(not Ben, of course (I assume), as the catholic church, unlike some radical protestant sects, doesn´t view the bible as something that has to be taken for literal)

[Ben Kenobi]

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

Most I suspect would be happier with them back in jail then out again.

[giblets]

Most I suspect would be happier with them back in jail then out again.

Then why don't you just establish an extremely long prison sentence for rape?

[Asher]

Like, second post of this thread... I found his presentation in Johannesburg, as well as an interview of him where he condemned the church for oppressing women, gays and abortionists.

****ing hell, Ben.

No where in this ****ing thread have you discussed the professor I quoted.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

No actually we were saying that less than 10% of the female population between 11 and 12 years of age would likely be capable of conceiving, while on the other hand at least 80% of the population of girls between 13 1/2 and 15 would be capable of conceiving. It's therfore to be expected that in a sample of pregnant girls aged 10 to 14 the overwhelming majority are going to be 13 and 14 year olds and a tiny portion are going to be 10 or 11 unless the study was designed in a way to equalize the ages which given the tiny number of pregnant 10 and 11 year olds, which would be quite burdensome.

Consider also that even in Brazilian culture a 10 or 11 year old is much likely to be sexually active than a 13 or 14 year old, and they're far less likely to have a fertile boy encouraging them. Yes, I know a fair number of 10 and 11 year old who already have a significant degree of secondary sex characteritic development, but secondary sex characteristics usually develop to 3 years before fertility begins.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.



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.

"He" isn't the one reporting evidence, it's the reporter who's doing that. The reporter tells us that the girl was 9, pregnant, in pain and that the abortion was done to save her life. No medical diagnosis of the cause of the pain was given. Was pregnancy the only diagnosis given? In Brazil it's still illegal to provide an abortion except in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger. We're told that the reason given was danger to the mother's life, that would require a medical diagnosis, but the report doesn't provide it. That is my point. You're saying that there wasn't a valid medical reason for the abortion, I'm saying we don't have enough information. Bring me the medical record.

Reporters being vague, inaccurate, lacking in detail? Never happens! Just look at the Trayvon Martin case.



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.[/QUOTE]