Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
10-Year-Old Rape Victim And Abortion
Following the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court, a 10 year old rape victim has been forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana in order to get an abortion. How do the avid anti-abortionists feel about that? Should the little girl have been compelled to give birth?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This drives me insane!
I am on a chat group for Las Vegas and just the other day there was a protest for women's rights - the key one being overturning of the high court decision.
Well the number of men that call women 'baby murderers' if they had an abortion was quite frankly shocking and said they should carry the babies to full term even if as in your case they were raped!
I was honestly shocked and very angry at some of the attitudes so your news piece does not surprise me at all and no of course she should not have to travel or be forced to have a child!
I am on a chat group for Las Vegas and just the other day there was a protest for women's rights - the key one being overturning of the high court decision.
Well the number of men that call women 'baby murderers' if they had an abortion was quite frankly shocking and said they should carry the babies to full term even if as in your case they were raped!
I was honestly shocked and very angry at some of the attitudes so your news piece does not surprise me at all and no of course she should not have to travel or be forced to have a child!
I read a very frightening article in the NY times the other day. There are extremist anti abortion groups who believe that women who have abortions are murderers and should be punished according to the laws of the state they reside in. So, if a woman who lives in Texas had an abortion...she'd face the death penalty. And rightly so according to these nutters.
Found the article...it may be behind a paywall.
https:/
Found the article...it may be behind a paywall.
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
> We could find outliers in any and every circumstance but they wouldn't make a good basis for law.
On the contrary, a good law should consider outliers, otherwise you get a law that forces a 10 year old rape victim to have a baby.
And in this case, I think the lawmakers did consider such outliers (they'd be pretty useless lawmakers if they didn't), and still put the law in place knowing that situations such as this one could crop up and the laws they were making would deal with such situations as they wished. i.e. they considered it, and they do not want child rape victims to be allowed to have an abortion in their state.
On the contrary, a good law should consider outliers, otherwise you get a law that forces a 10 year old rape victim to have a baby.
And in this case, I think the lawmakers did consider such outliers (they'd be pretty useless lawmakers if they didn't), and still put the law in place knowing that situations such as this one could crop up and the laws they were making would deal with such situations as they wished. i.e. they considered it, and they do not want child rape victims to be allowed to have an abortion in their state.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I think there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of what this ruling was.
Years ago the Supreme Court made a ruling on something not covered by the constitution, they should not have done. Successive Governments, Dems and GOP have failed to make a Federal law to cover it. So now it has been returned to the individual States to decide, as is there constitution.
If anything its now more democratic.
As to what each individual State decides that is a different matter, but it should reflect the views of the majority. Or the Governor will be out next election.
For the record I think the UK has it about right, maybe a little shorter time but I can live with how we have it.
Years ago the Supreme Court made a ruling on something not covered by the constitution, they should not have done. Successive Governments, Dems and GOP have failed to make a Federal law to cover it. So now it has been returned to the individual States to decide, as is there constitution.
If anything its now more democratic.
As to what each individual State decides that is a different matter, but it should reflect the views of the majority. Or the Governor will be out next election.
For the record I think the UK has it about right, maybe a little shorter time but I can live with how we have it.
On the contrary, a good law should consider outliers,
no - hard cases make bad law - known a long time, ( Richard I or someone)
.
as for : And what doctor would dare to perform a procedure that might land him/her in prison?
this one
R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
A 14 year old girl was raped by five soldiers and became pregnant as a result. An eminent gynaecologist performed an abortion on her and was charged with the offence of conducting an illegal abortion. He was acquitted. Mr Justice Macnaghten:
“If the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother”.
I would have thought a lof of jurisdictions have similar rulings.
For those who like Latin, MacNaghten J turned around and said there is no mens rea ( he didnt intend this) - and banged his gavel and screamed ( as judges do) -"Case dismissed!"
You proles missed all this because you dont google - a machine of the devil, well bad luck, haw haw haw
no - hard cases make bad law - known a long time, ( Richard I or someone)
.
as for : And what doctor would dare to perform a procedure that might land him/her in prison?
this one
R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
A 14 year old girl was raped by five soldiers and became pregnant as a result. An eminent gynaecologist performed an abortion on her and was charged with the offence of conducting an illegal abortion. He was acquitted. Mr Justice Macnaghten:
“If the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother”.
I would have thought a lof of jurisdictions have similar rulings.
For those who like Latin, MacNaghten J turned around and said there is no mens rea ( he didnt intend this) - and banged his gavel and screamed ( as judges do) -"Case dismissed!"
You proles missed all this because you dont google - a machine of the devil, well bad luck, haw haw haw
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.