"Any child under 13 can't safely give birth and its rare that it works."
What is your source for this? I've been searching for medical information about this (something neutral and authoritative, because individual pro-life and pro-choice medical practitioners contradict each other about it), and I haven't been able to track down anything more than what I wrote in my comment of 5 July, above.
Obviously, if a 10-year-old were in grave danger, it would be perfectly reasonable for her parents to do what is necessary to preserve her life (without undue violence to the other victim). The "problem" for this position is that pregnant 10-year-olds do not appear to be in grave danger simply by fact of the pregnancy, based on the sources I have been able to track down. That's good news for pregnant 10-year-olds and their children, but bad news for pro-choicers and pro-lifers who have to try fitting that stubborn fact into their ideologies.
"you act as if its cruel to safly give the CHILD a safe medical abortion"
It is cruel. Firstly, I'm unaware of any medical trials establishing the safety of mifepristone/misoprostol in under-13's. We went through months and months of trials to establish that level of safety for child covid-19 vaccines that had proved safe & effective in nearly the entire adult population; where's that evidence for medical abortions? So why would we assume it's safe here?
Secondly, even if it is safe (in the sense that the medical abortion won't kill her), you gloss over the fact that the medical abortion itself will be a traumatic and likely intensely painful experience. We aren't faced with a choice between a painful traumatic birth and painless trauma-free abortion here; we are faced with a choice between two painful traumas. Pro-choicers routinely gloss over this.
Thirdly, even if it were safe, painless, and trauma-free for the 10-year-old child (which it is not), a medical abortion would not be safe for the 10-year-old child's unborn child, who would be killed in this process. Obviously, we do not agree that this matters, since that is the central point of disagreement between our two sides, but it is a fairly important consideration from where I'm sitting. We must find answers that love and honor both victims in these terrible situations, both mother and baby.
As I wrote in the piece, there is nothing we can do to fix this calamity when it happens -- and it happens far, far too often. All we can do is help the victims through the calamity as best we can, and to ease the pain even though the damage can never be repaired. I don't think my proposal is by any means perfect, but I think it helps more than America's current "kill it and forget it" approach to child rape.
Jul 4, 2022·edited Jul 5, 2022Liked by James J. Heaney
I love your proposal. You have my vote.
I would like to rant a little bit about the underlying argument that this is based off of from the proponents of abortion: that pro-lifers don't care about the baby beyond birth. That trash is so ridiculous given the amount of nonprofit organizations I know that are, and have been for decades, working towards taking care of the mother and child. Most are religious based (most charities are if I am not mistaken). So to say we aren't doing anything is disingenuous.
Even if we were though, the argument is still for murder. So yes, I am completely okay with Roe being struck down for being incorrect even without those provisions in place. Even in this extreme edge case. It's hard, but the alternative is worse.
I see your footnote about why you chose 13, but I think a program like this should benefit anyone under 15, personally. That's still a really small number of cases, and anyone under 15 is still a child. Or, alternatively, once you hit 13 but you are under 16 you qualify for a similar but slightly less intense program - maybe you don't get free medical care and free college, but significantly reduced, plus ready access to resources for pregnant single mothers (as a mid-teenager might be old enough to consent to sex with a similarly-aged person, and might be old enough to decide to raise a child, while a 13-year-old is not and is ALWAYS the victim of a violent crime). I think we would also want to add free access to significant mental health resources to your list, since anyone in this situation will need that to cope with what's happened.
To my knowledge, it isn't true. 10-year-olds face elevated risks but are, to my understanding, physically capable of giving birth and fully recovering after, although typing that sentence gives me nausea. Risks like eclampsia must be monitored, a C-section is generally in order, but neither mother nor child is doomed to death or permanent injury by the mere fact of the pregnancy. Again -- that's my (not-a-doctor) understanding.
Since the Ohio heartbeat law *does* include a "medical necessity" exception, and yet this 10-year-old was apparently denied an abortion, my presumption is that the State of Ohio has drawn the same conclusion. (If that's not the case, then this whole shebang was propaganda.)
Obviously, I will defer to the experts. If it turns out that pregnancy in a ten-year-old means probable permanent disability for the ten-year-old (as I have seen some pro-choicers claim), then I'm wrong -- but then she had a legal right to an abortion in Ohio anyway.
I shared this a few places on fb, and that concern was brought up as though it were settled fact by one of the members of the group, who also found it interesting that you didn't mention that possibility at all.
"Any child under 13 can't safely give birth and its rare that it works."
What is your source for this? I've been searching for medical information about this (something neutral and authoritative, because individual pro-life and pro-choice medical practitioners contradict each other about it), and I haven't been able to track down anything more than what I wrote in my comment of 5 July, above.
Obviously, if a 10-year-old were in grave danger, it would be perfectly reasonable for her parents to do what is necessary to preserve her life (without undue violence to the other victim). The "problem" for this position is that pregnant 10-year-olds do not appear to be in grave danger simply by fact of the pregnancy, based on the sources I have been able to track down. That's good news for pregnant 10-year-olds and their children, but bad news for pro-choicers and pro-lifers who have to try fitting that stubborn fact into their ideologies.
"you act as if its cruel to safly give the CHILD a safe medical abortion"
It is cruel. Firstly, I'm unaware of any medical trials establishing the safety of mifepristone/misoprostol in under-13's. We went through months and months of trials to establish that level of safety for child covid-19 vaccines that had proved safe & effective in nearly the entire adult population; where's that evidence for medical abortions? So why would we assume it's safe here?
Secondly, even if it is safe (in the sense that the medical abortion won't kill her), you gloss over the fact that the medical abortion itself will be a traumatic and likely intensely painful experience. We aren't faced with a choice between a painful traumatic birth and painless trauma-free abortion here; we are faced with a choice between two painful traumas. Pro-choicers routinely gloss over this.
Thirdly, even if it were safe, painless, and trauma-free for the 10-year-old child (which it is not), a medical abortion would not be safe for the 10-year-old child's unborn child, who would be killed in this process. Obviously, we do not agree that this matters, since that is the central point of disagreement between our two sides, but it is a fairly important consideration from where I'm sitting. We must find answers that love and honor both victims in these terrible situations, both mother and baby.
As I wrote in the piece, there is nothing we can do to fix this calamity when it happens -- and it happens far, far too often. All we can do is help the victims through the calamity as best we can, and to ease the pain even though the damage can never be repaired. I don't think my proposal is by any means perfect, but I think it helps more than America's current "kill it and forget it" approach to child rape.
Thanks for your comment.
I love your proposal. You have my vote.
I would like to rant a little bit about the underlying argument that this is based off of from the proponents of abortion: that pro-lifers don't care about the baby beyond birth. That trash is so ridiculous given the amount of nonprofit organizations I know that are, and have been for decades, working towards taking care of the mother and child. Most are religious based (most charities are if I am not mistaken). So to say we aren't doing anything is disingenuous.
Even if we were though, the argument is still for murder. So yes, I am completely okay with Roe being struck down for being incorrect even without those provisions in place. Even in this extreme edge case. It's hard, but the alternative is worse.
The ticket should be purple. It gets away from the Blue/Red political divide. We need Purple solutions for many of our problems.
Oh dang it I like purple a lot.
You're right. I'm gonna do an end-of-the-article edit.
I see your footnote about why you chose 13, but I think a program like this should benefit anyone under 15, personally. That's still a really small number of cases, and anyone under 15 is still a child. Or, alternatively, once you hit 13 but you are under 16 you qualify for a similar but slightly less intense program - maybe you don't get free medical care and free college, but significantly reduced, plus ready access to resources for pregnant single mothers (as a mid-teenager might be old enough to consent to sex with a similarly-aged person, and might be old enough to decide to raise a child, while a 13-year-old is not and is ALWAYS the victim of a violent crime). I think we would also want to add free access to significant mental health resources to your list, since anyone in this situation will need that to cope with what's happened.
Mental health's on there!
I basically agree, but, like you said, there are complex questions that show up at higher age groups that I just don't have the answers to.
What would you say to those who argue that every pregnancy at this age is inherently life-threatening?
To my knowledge, it isn't true. 10-year-olds face elevated risks but are, to my understanding, physically capable of giving birth and fully recovering after, although typing that sentence gives me nausea. Risks like eclampsia must be monitored, a C-section is generally in order, but neither mother nor child is doomed to death or permanent injury by the mere fact of the pregnancy. Again -- that's my (not-a-doctor) understanding.
Since the Ohio heartbeat law *does* include a "medical necessity" exception, and yet this 10-year-old was apparently denied an abortion, my presumption is that the State of Ohio has drawn the same conclusion. (If that's not the case, then this whole shebang was propaganda.)
Obviously, I will defer to the experts. If it turns out that pregnancy in a ten-year-old means probable permanent disability for the ten-year-old (as I have seen some pro-choicers claim), then I'm wrong -- but then she had a legal right to an abortion in Ohio anyway.
I shared this a few places on fb, and that concern was brought up as though it were settled fact by one of the members of the group, who also found it interesting that you didn't mention that possibility at all.
Given how common it's turning out to be in replies, it's definitely something I should address in any future iteration.
that, and the amount of pushback on your claim that raping 10-year-olds is over the line...