lula posts:

Concerning cases of rape of very young girls who then become pregnant...here is more on the story of the 9 and 5 year old girls who became pregnant.

Neonatologist Says Brazilian Nine-Year-Old Could Have Safely Brought Child to Term

March 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The horrific case of a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who was repeatedly raped by her step-father, and who subsequently became pregnant with twins has made headlines around the world in recent days. The case created widespread controversy after the girl had an abortion, an act that was condemned by the Catholic Church in the country due to the fact that doctors had originally refused to perform an abortion, stating that the girl's life was not in danger.

The doctors who later performed the abortion, however, claimed that the girl's life was indeed in danger, a claim that has been widely repeated in the mainstream media.

But in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, Ohio, strongly refuted the assumption that the Brazilian girl's life was threatened by the pregnancy, simply because of her age.

Byrne told LSN that it is certainly medically possible for a young girl safely to carry a pregnancy of twins to term. He acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, but said that the problem of giving birth with an undeveloped pelvic structure could be safely avoided by a caesarean section. 
 
Dr. Byrne cited the case of Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days.
 
But he emphasized that no matter what the situation in the case, "abortion is not the solution." The girl, he said, "was sexually abused" and needed treatment. "Someone should have tried to help this girl."
  
"The mother and both babies should have had their life protected, preserved and defended. There is no reason to kill these babies," he said.
 
Dr. Byrne noted also that the girl now faces the usual long-term health risks associated with abortion, including possible future pre-term births and miscarriage due to an "incompetent cervix," a cervix that is too weak to stay closed during a pregnancy.
 
Much research has shown other serious long-term health complications of abortion, including increased risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and liver cancers. Other risks associated with abortion include such serious mental health issues as post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

But when that child is born, all decisions are therein defaulted to the mother/parents. So...i guess, again playing devils advocate, how does that differ? Setting aside the issue of it being her body, technically she is still the mother.

((It's funny how there are those who are hypocrits because they accept other forms of body modification, sometimes even claiming religious nature in it. ))

~Alderic

See lula, that is just it, it is your opinion - your choice. Frankly, your opinion and choices have no influence on anyone else, save your children.

~Alderic

lula posts:

Stingy bella..interesting!  Did you see the movie Bella?

Anyway back to the serious business of discussing semantics and the reality behind them. It's the pro-abortion crowd who sets aside the humanity aspect when they disconnect killing by the words they use....words as "pro-choice" and "reproductive  "rights" are a few of their falsities. "Pro-choice" is a euphemism that hides the act of killing babies in the womb...they use it to manipulate people into accepting the killing.

We have a holocaust going on and it would end if, one....it were perceived as it really is .....killing children instead of a an exercise of a woman's "right to her own body" or "right to choose" and two...people, especially legislatures, were made to view an abortion and see the blood and gore of it all.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  From the debates that I've had with Lula and KFC they seem to have done a decent job of educating their kids.  I may not agree with the abstinence route but that was their choice to make.  As for parents who opt their kids out of sex ed and still refuse to do sex ed at home they are just asking for problems.

I agree with this.  But any sex ed class should NOT tell the kids that they shouldn't be gay, or straight for that matter, they should simply present the facts so that the students have the information.  What they do with the information is up to them.

No.  The question from the Red Cross should be about unprotected anal sex not the persons sexuality because it's the unprotected anal sex that increases the risk of AIDS not the persons sexuality.

The education needs to focus on unprotected sex of any kind not about the sexuality of the people involved.  AIDS doesn't care what your sexuality is it just needs a fluid exchange to transmit itself to another host.  If you are protected against the fluid exchange then the risk drops significantly.  Yes abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent transmission via sex but it still doesn't prevent it via IV drug use or blood transfusions (although our screening process takes care of this for the most part).

If the information is infact incorrect then it needs to be corrected plain and simple.  Yes abstinence should be emphasized as the only 100% method to not contract stds but the other methods to prevent should be presented with their efficacy so that people can make informed decisions if the need arises.

I think the problem isn't so much the school system as it is the culture.  We have an over sexed culture in the entertainment industry.  Our kids look up to people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, etc. and those people don't set a good example.  We also have a lot of parents (present company excluded) who like to ignore the problem and expect it to go away.  Most parents are quite content to sit their kids in front of the tv of computer all day as long as the kids are out of their hair and we reap what we sow.  The solution to this is a combination of proper education (emphasizing abstinence) and parents getting involved in what their kids do on a daily basis (knowing who their friends are, where they go after school and on the weekends, etc).

Exactly.  Well said.

From a scientific standpoint you are wrong.

But its not politically correct to admit that you are ending a life for your own convinience. albeit a life that has yet to develop a mind or personality / be born and have emotional bonds form to it. But you are still ending a life. I am pro-abortion (for other people), no pussy footing about.

The explanation I have read is that in some countries, monkeys and very poor humans root through the garbage of restaurant for food remains... and often fight over those remains. Biting and scratching is the most likely cause in such a fight.

I personally would guess a bite by an infected monkey after it started bleeding from its gums due to a punch.

Choice over your reproductive options means using contraceptives (which the crazy religious people also oppose). Abortion is the choice to kill your own children.

Correct, there is no magic in homosexuality that makes unprotected anal sex more dangerous for them then it is for hetrosexuals despite lulas odd interpretation of the bible.

And what do you mean by HAD the largest? they still do. most people "trust" their partner (its not a matter of trust but they think of it as trust) to be free of disease, so only use protection as a form of contraceptive, not for STD prevention.

And hence it would be stupid to say that children shouldn't be taught that smokers are more at risk of cancer than non-smokers!

But it is - if you're heterosexual, then you will typically be having 'lower risk' sex that is not a possibility if you're homosexual. To go back to the smoking example, it's a bit like saying that inhaling smoke and toxins etc. is harmful to your health, but that non-smokers can also engage in this as well as smokers. Non-smokers are far less likely to engage in such activity than smokers.

Pro choice means you support a womans right to choose whether to have an abortion. In other words, you're supporting the use of abortion (in such cases). You might not think that abortion should be chosen in every case, but you're still supporting it being chosen by people who think they should have an abortion. In fact pro-choice by itself is misleading - it's only pro the mothers choice, not the baby. The  baby gets no say in whether it is killed. It's bizarre that mothers who kill their baby (or leave it to die) moments after it is born are reviled, yet mothers who have the baby killed before it's born are supported and even encouraged.

Abortion when the mothers life is in danger is a completely different thing. In the typical abortion a life is ended for the mothers convenience. In the case where the mothers life is in danger, a life is ended to save another.

I do understand what you're saying but to me it's like sitting on the fence with one leg over each side.  While you personally don't like it or would have one yourself you are all about our  freedom to choose.  I get that.   I agree to a point and probably would agree with you if it were another issue that didn't involve a hushed voice that has no say.  

For me Ronald Reagan summed it up perfectly when he said this:

Uh, I'm not seeing how you're linking the two. I'm firmly against abortion, but the catch is that when it comes down to it...what others do, is not my issue. I have no say. Perhaps it would be better of me to say, I'm pro you. You make the decision based off what you believe.

Heterosexual sex is no less risky than anal sex.  The difference is that those having vaginal intercourse will more likely be using a condom to prevent pregnancy which also protects them from AIDS.  If those having anal sex were to use a condom they would be equally protected.

Different yes, but it is also the argument to keep abortion around as safe and legal so that there are doctors available to perform the procedure when the woman's life is at risk.  If abortion is made illegal it will be almost impossible to find a doctor who knows how to do the procedure properly which significantly increases the risk to the woman.  Not to mention the fact that making it illegal will lead to a potentially dramatic increase in the number of back alley abortions which are extremely dangerous potentially ending in the woman hemoraging to death.

Which is why I say with or without life support.  A fetus that had 30 weeks of gestation can potentially live outside the womb with the help of life support and it should be given that chance to survive.  I have heard of cases of as early as 22 or 23 weeks being able to live outside the womb.  Much earlier than that and it's not yet possible, maybe some day it will be and abortion will no longer be needed because the developing fetus can be transplanted to an artifical womb.

That's not what I said at all.  Try re-reading my comment.

The primary time period that I use the description of a parasite is in the first trimester, if I was unclear in that I appologize.  As I have said once you enter the second trimester the only reason for an abortion should be in the case of the woman's health being at risk, and once the fetus is able to be put on life support outside the womb that should be attempted rather than abortion (currently it can be attempted as early as 22-23 weeks, but that is extremely rare).

really?

please provide some documentation--like peer-reviewed scientific papers--to back that up.