14 year old rape victim from Warsaw denied abortion!

Dont they try to find a host to burrow into like other parasites do? After all they couldnt survive without said host.

I fully go along with what Darek said above. Sorry, Harry, it makes perfect sense.

And here's where your logic ends and your morals become double standards...
Since you already decided that fetuses are humans, what makes a fetus created throuth rape less worthy of life than the one created because of a blown-up condom? And if the life of a fetus is worth just as much as the life of a grown woman then who are YOU to decide which one should live and which one should die?

Personally I also used to support abortion "only in special cases". But since that argument is simply hypocritical, I now support abortion in every case when a woman simply doesn't wish to be a mother. And here's why:

Being a mother is not simply a matter of material costs but it's also a HUGE cultural, psychological and social burden. A woman cannot simply give birth to a child and then stop being a mother by giving it up. Even after rejecting the child she continues to be a mother. The only difference is that then she is a BAD mother. After the child is born a woman has two choices - to be a good mother or a bad mother. She can't choose not to be a mother at all. And if you think that it's somehow not a big deal then ask yourself - what is a difference between a person who's raped and a person who has sex willingly? Or between a man who has sex with a 19-ear-old girl and a man who has sex with a 12 year-old girl who just had her first period (a sign from nature that she's mature enough to breed). Physically there is no difference and someone raised in a culture that condones rape or pedophilia would probably also think that it's 'not a big deal'. And yet the difference exists, only it lays in social norms that are so deeply engraved in our mind that it can literally cripple a person.

To a woman, there is no bigger social pressure than that which stems from having given birth to a child. From that moment on woman's worth is judged through the prism of motherhood. Even the most successful woman is discredited the moment someone says 'she sacrificed her children for a career! She may be famous but she's a BAD MOTHER!'. Physically a woman is free, but mentally she becomes a slave for her children. Everything she does must result in their well-being, otherwise she ends with a label of a BAD mother.

For a 14-year-old child it's simply impossible to take on that pressure. It's also impossible for such child to stop being a mother and highly improbable to be a good mother. Therefore she automatically ends up with a label of a BAD mother=BAD woman=BAD person. That kind of stigma can never be washed off. If she keeps a child and is unable to give it proper care, she's a bad mother. If she gives a child up for adoption, she's a bad mother. If she decides to find her child once she's an adult then it is not seen as an act of good will on her part but rather as 'bad mother trying to pay back for her sins'

It's as if an act of giving birth was such a huge favour for a woman from the baby she gave birth to, that she now OWES something to that baby and must pay off that 'debt'.

In that aspect, an unwanted child really does become a mental parasite. Which is why it's so important that a woman chooses that responsibility willingly. Abortion is the only thing which society accepts as an act of actually stopping to be a mother. So the moral depth to abortion is not only a matter of whether the life of a brainless fetus is worth the same as life of a child with thoughts, dreams and feelings but also a matter of woman's mental stability.

My logic does not end here. I was showing why I think a fetus should not be compared to a parasite. I think I succeeded in that. I finished my post with a statement of what I believe in regards to various scenarios around the issue of abortion. That belief does not defeat what I wrote above it.


I can't answer the question since it contains a false premise. Read my post again and carefully. I never wrote I considered a fetus a human. You inferred that so you will need to answer your own question.


And who are YOU to tell me what I think, since I certainly did not decide anything that you allege. Neither did I evaluate the worth of woman;s life against that of the fetus. When you THINK you are debating someone's statements first make sure that those statements were actually made. Without that you are talking to yourself and projecting your own thoughts at best.


Again, you are putting words in my mouth and then you make an attempt at a flashy and shiny defeat of that nonexistent arguments. That puts you in a great position - you win. After all you can always modify the nonexistent arguments into different nonexistent arguments to help you defeat them. Alas, I offered no arguments for or against abortion.


Indeed, this is the gist of it AFTER the child is born. Where was the mother's brain BEFORE that? In her crotch?


Huge difference. Someone who has sex willingly, in today day and age, and in the so called (somewhat) developed societies will certainly know the consequences of unprotected sex. If women (and men) are advised to wear protection to avoid diseases and many do, then what kind of carelessness causes the woman (and the man) to not think ahead about biological consequences of a sexual intercourse. Those consequences happen to be the primary function of a sexual intercourse.


Since that sounds just like a feminist rant I won't bother to respond in great detail. There is a lot of reasons why a person (man or woman) will be called bad this or bad that. We are always judged by others and motherhood/fatherhood are just some aspects of our social lives.


From the biological standpoint the so called social pressure is irrelevant. The primary function of life is to perpetuate itself. In humans it means giving birth to children. Society, while very important to the development of humans is of secondary importance in terms of the survival of the species.

Also, it is not impossible for a 14 year old to take on the pressure. It is certainly harder for some than for others, but not impossible. Millions of 14 year old girls gave birth to children and did not suffer from any alleged social pressures anymore than all of us (regardless of their gender) suffer from social pressures such as crossing only of green lights, wearing a certain kind of hairdo, covering your private parts in public, having to earn a living and thousands other little rules which amount to nothing more than social pressure. It is also as highly improbable as it is highly probable for a 14 year old to be a good mother. Again, the term itself (bad mother) is a social concept and it will vary among different societies. Hence your blanket statements about "society" hold no universal truths.


And where did you get that one from?


I think you are confusing an unwanted child with an unplanned child. Huge difference. Another blanket statement of yours that puts your entire argument onto an even more shaky ground.


Few things are further from the truth. Abstinence and contraceptives have been known for quite some time. You might want to google those. In the long run they may be cheaper and safer than an abortion.


You need to take a refresher course in biology. Anybody who paid attention in the primary school in one of the so called developed countries will know that the fetus in fact is not brainless at all. In its entire existence the fetus does have a brain.

So back to square one:
I do not believe a fetus can be compared to a parasite anymore than anybody arbitrarily deemed undesirable - the sick, the handicapped, the unemployed etc.

And I still can understand those women who got impregnated by force, or whose pregnancy can cause her death. Under all other circumstances I would be less understanding. In the end the woman (and the man, if he's involved in the decision) will have to live with the emotional consequences of the abortion.

I feel privileged though, that you decided to open an account on PF just to respond to my post. The response won't hold much water in a few places but I appreciate the attempt at an honest debate.

Wow Darius some solid points there :O

i want to see some pro-abortionist respond to that.

May I add that Biology greatly leans towards a fetus actually being a living, thinking, being...

I was refering to the trauma of a rape victim, which from the biological point of view shouldn't exist, since nature couldn't care less if a woman is impregnated willingly or not. And apparently you understand this too:


In other words rape shouldn't create trauma. And yet, it does. Why? Because of the cultural approach to unwilling sex. Same with motherhood.

Mattewoflv is right, your post has some good points, however you are both missing MY point.
If abortion is morally wrong, then how exactly? If it's morally wrong because of the woman's choices or their lack then that means fetus can be objectified and is not a real life which should be protected at all cost. In other words if you agree that a rape victim can get rid of a fetus, then that means that the life of this fetus is unimportant. And if that's the case, then a fetus consieved through simple carelessness is also not a real life that should be protected at all cost and is unimportant. So, if it's unimportant then why exactly shouldn't it be aborted? From the biological standpoint all fetuses are equal. The only difference in your eyes lies not in a fetus but in a WOMAN. You judge not a fetus, but a woman and her choices and you have no right to tell her whether she is morally worthy of abortion or not.

However there is another argument that abortion is morally wrong and that is the one about the sanctity of life. This one is even more hypocritical.

If you decide that a fetus consieved willingly is a sacred life that should be preserved but a fetus consieved unwillingly is somehow less sacred you are doing nothing other than judging a life in the strangest way - not by itself but by it's host. I could understand saying that a healthy fetus is a sacred life that should be preserved and a 'damaged' one is not but what kind of logic allows you to judge whether a fetus is worthy of life or not simply by the way a man decided to get it inside a woman. This is an act of evaluating a living being and declaring it's unequalness simply due to the choices of another living being.

That's why you need to decide - is a fetus (EVERY fetus) a life that should be protected or not? If it is, then that means abortion shouldn't be allowed in any case. If it's not, then abortion is okay no matter the circumstances.

Vetala, that's just not right that getting rid of a foetus from a rape victim makes the life unimportant. You said it yourself, "but it's also a HUGE cultural, psychological and social burden". I agree with that so why should a woman be lumbered with this burden when she didn't want the baby in the first place? It'd be a constant reminder of her harrowing torment. The life still holds importance to many, just not to her and you have to draw that distinction.

Dariusz, you didn't elaborate on unwanted/unplanned. In my eyes, there isn't a huge difference in this specific case. The foetus spawned from rape is, in 99% of cases, both. There is no real dichotomy to talk of in relation to the above.

I'll just say, as an added extra, that we should keep an open mind rather than be universalistic. Meaningless crap? I don't think so. There is some variation as to the age of consent to sex. In Scotland, 16 is the age that we deem children (as they still are in the eyes of the law) sufficiently aware. That says something as our age of criminal responsibility was 8. Vetala alluded to the scores of 14-year olds having kids. Here's where the open mind comes in. A Maltese person may pour scorn over a Spaniard but we need to understand national sentiment. The age of consent in Malta is 18 (or was) and 13 in Spain (or was). As undesirable as having a kid at 14 is, much of Europe and, I hazard a guess, much of the rest of the world must hold up their hands and realise that we have inadvertently and, sometimes not, created that predicament.

Finally, the above could have an analogy to driving. Show people a limit of 30mph and they will drive above 40 (mostly). Even with a police presence, up to 33mph. It is a human tendency to take a little more and break the rules. The same as with youngsters, they'll chance their mit.

Is it relatively easy for Poles to go to Germany or Czech or Solvakia for abortions? Or are there consequences if you are caught?

Well, The Czech Republic isn't predominantely Catholic so the chances are better.

I did not suggest that effects of biological processes does not cause trauma. Of course it does. Pain and death also cause trauma, but on the level of the species life goes on. If a person was raped then the offspring would in fact be a part of the evolutionary process which is not all just adaptation. Chance and accident are important parts of evolutionary processes. Hence, I wrote I would understand a rape victim but that has nothing to do with the evolutionary processes.


Waiddaminute! So if that was not for the society then the victims experience such as possible physical injuries do not cause any trauma? You are throwing an individual out and you are attributing an entire experience of a person to results of social approaches. That would mean that the loss of the loved one due to murder could become a cause for celebrations if only society decided so. Your thoughts lead to one belief - trauma cannot exists without external witnesses. And yet, even in societies where abortions are not an issue at all women are victims of trauma. A rape victim in the US, Canada or UK is likely to be traumatized as much as much as in any other country on this planet.

It appears that you aren't really disagreeing with my original post. After all I addressed biological issues. Your beef seemed to be with what I feel about rape victims decision to abort, as opposed to the more leisurely candidates for abortion.

I make no decisions about abortion, and I don't even hit the streets to carry banners for either side of the argument. I know what decision I would do and did. That doesn't make me wrong or right. It makes me yet another fella with an opinion. It happens to be contrary to yours. Neither of us is wrong.

If you read your posts you can't escape noticing the large number of "if". That's what makes most, perhaps even all, statements palatable. Of course if the conditions you propose are met. The problem is that speaking of "society" you are using a huge brush and painting over so many fundamental and intricate difference that exist among societies.

Your questions and answers not only do not apply to the society a a whole but they are not valid even for one single country as the opinions within such a country are bound to vary by person's religion, social, economic and other backgrounds. Various people will used different set of conditions than those you have used after the few "ifs".

Societies decided about various norms, even if those norms are against natural flow of life. That has nothing to do with my anti-parasite argument.

Social contract (I don't remember who first used the term) is just a contract. It can be broken or changed as social norms and approaches are not absolutes existing outside human minds. Biological processes are.

Sociology is for the most part an art of bul.lshi.tting (no offense meant, I studied that too). Everybody is right and everybody is wrong. I prefer to stay on the more solid ground of biology where a fetus is not in the same category as a parasite. In social terms that's a different story. At one time someone decided Jews were parasites. Some believe Blacks are also parasites, as much as the unemployed, the disabled etc.


Yes, it seems like I rounded things up (or down). Let's say that every unwanted child is unplanned, but not every unplanned child is unwanted.

That seems to be more accurate here :)

it would be better for priests to found father and force him to accept his responsibilities, at least to force him to accept money paymants for mother and child till child become 18 (or 21) years old.

Then and just then they should come to young mother and demand something from her

See what religion will do

As a generalization I don't believe that to be true. Women in the U.S. for instance receive consultation from organizations that have a feminist perspective of victimology. In short, rape victims are told that they will never be the same along with similar perspectives related to feminist thought.

Women in war torn countries who were raped were made of stronger stuff. They survived
and continued life anew. That was true for Poles, Russians, yes, and German women too.
More recently, Vietnamese women started new families, as do rape victmes in countries other than the U.S. where women who drink too much; have sex and then regret it later call it rape. Of course the same standard does not apply to men who drink too much and have sex; but I (slightly) digress.

I am sorry to say that the Catholic Church and prolifers should get down off their high chairs. They seem to forget that the woman regardless of age may have health issues that may cause this individuals death or other serious issues.

And at the age of 14, I am not sure if this person can handle the full term pregnancy and delivery. What she needs is a lot of support and therapy to get over this rape. To many priests here in Canada have been accused of child abuse and the church has had to settle. Which proves that the church has antiquated views that need to be completely updated to the 21st century. The Catholic church has been far to dictatorial and rigid for the last 600 yrs.

The key point is that priests and the RCC, like doctors, are just people too. Many place them on a pedestal and this is where the accruing of power goes wrong. Gjene has just written a super post.

I have access to the same info as they do and am more than able to make moral judgements. I'll never let a priest decide for me. Priests are for the weak who need to be led. If you can't feel God around you then that's your issue but denying a 14-year old RAPE victim an abortion is just folly of the highest order!

It's really sad to learn that a little girl suffered so much will need to continue her hell-like suffering for who knows how long it will be...

If the church isn't doing things out of the intention of alleviating the pain and saving people from torture, people should really reconsider having their children be religious.

Super commentary, jaind. Sth so fundamental as eliminating the symbol of rape (unwanted baby) is bread and butter in the civilised world. The RCC is rooted in anachronistic ways and 95% of people here subscribe to those very ways.

Talk about regression :(

As for the Catholic Church, they should mind their own business. Here in Canada, there were some Catholic priests that were charged with child molestation/abuse and the church had to settle this. It cost them quite a few million dollars. That is why I said earlier that the Church needs to revamp their whole viewpoint and get out of the rut. History is not very favourable to an organization that wants to remain dictatorial. Look what happened to Napoleon, Hitler, and Communism.

So, I hope that the girl gets an abortion and therapy for what happened. Besides, who can tell what kind of health issued any one individual female may have that would cause complications in giving birth and what the long term effects could be as well.

And have you wondered why those American women receive the consultation? Not because they went through a significant trauma?

I feel you're confusing trauma itself with how it's addressed in various societies. A rape is a violence against a person. Violence causes trauma. Some will handle it better some not. It is an issue of individual mental capabilities, not the borders within which a rape victim resides.


Child abuse doesn't prove that someone has antiquated views. It only proves that someone is a child abuser. Child abuse is not a religion or some spiritual movement.

Also, child abuse by some catholic priests has no bearing on the condition of the 14 year old girl. One does not need to be religious to be against abortion, and then, there are people who consider themselves religious (and catholic) who are "pro-choice".

people - first of all the girl in question has not been subject to any form of rape

she had sex with her say boyfriend on her own consent (and as far as I can remember it took place on some trip organized by their parish)

were there any rape there would be investigation and conviction - there hasn't been any

Gazeta Wyborcza is actively promoting abortion on demand in that case using lies and manipulations

this is leaving the abortion dispute aside

Got any sources on that?

I will only say one thing: you don't know what you are talking about.

Such "consultation" is a good thing; I highly recommend it from professionals, family, etc. What I disagree with is the kinid of therapy which is agenda driven. It causes more harm than good.


Actually I do.

Gjene is right. Most people don't rape or sin badly, simple point. However, proportionately, quite a few RCC priests are kiddie fiddlers, thus sinners. Who are they to dictate to us? Jesus was a virtuous man and would have turned in his grave if he had known.

You talk of sin, it is a crime.


It is said, he got up and left his grave, what does that tell you?.

It is both, Seanny.

It tells me that he badly needed a slash :)

Right On!!!

again there was no rape involved as far as I know

excerpt from a comment on a book by Catholic journalists about the case - the comment is pretty malicious (it is by a pro-choice person)

Ciąża 14 letniej Jowity, nazwanej w mediach Agatą, stanowi wynik czynu zabronionego - obcowania płciowego osób poniżej 15. roku życia

translation
14-year-old Jowita's pregnancy (named Agate by the media), is the result of the legally forbidden action: intercourse between people below age of 15

now the link:

pardon.pl/artykul/5891/_/24#komentarz_1182271

it is true that Polish law allows for abortion in this case (the pregnancy is the result of unlawful action)

but it does change the moral matters involved


and if Gazeta Wyborcza was using the term rape it shows that they are ready to manipulate to further their agenda (i don't read Gazeta, in fact I don't read any paper issues of newspapers, just read some internet news (Gazeta.pl only occasionally)

That's a bunch of b.s. That priest should mind his own business....oh wait, he cant.