In Her Own Words: 13 year old denied abortion

I spent last night in a deep discussion with my traditionalist Catholic mother.  After several glasses of wine I brought up the case of the 13 year old girl in Florida who wants an abortion.  I could clearly see her struggle, and finally she came down on the side of choice for the girl.  It was not easy for her, and I applaud her sincere thought.

In the end it came down to 2 things: first, that the male would continue his life unhindered and unpunished and second, that the girl expressed her choice in her own words.

Here they are, from the Sun-Sentinel.

"Why can't I make my own decision?"

"I don't know," Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday

"You don't know?" replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. "Aren't you the judge?"

"I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job," the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her.

"DCF would take the baby anyway," she said, but later added: "If I do have it, I'm not going to let them take it."

"Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn't you all look at that fact that it'd be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?" she asked. Alvarez called that "a good point."

Read the whole article here.

While this is easily found on BBC, I couldn't find news about it in our Republican media.

We need to spread this and ask the question- "How young does the girl have to be before she counts?"  I had a girl in my classroom menstruate at 9.

•  They don't care how young she is

  or how dangerous- and they want to take the baby once she's done incubating.

  We need to use this example to show America why Democrats want judges that will uphold the law, not uphold girls as examples.

  by sandblaster on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:38:56 AM PDT

  •  think of all the republican couples that can't

    have kids!  i bet the baby would be snapped up in no time by some wealthy infertile couple.  it's ridiculous!  these folks only want babies!  what about all the kids already here!!  where are these christian folks to adopt the 8 year olds?  they don't want the eight year olds.  they want the babies.  and if they take this baby from a 13 year old... there will be no chance she can take it back, either.  that's what's going on here.

    by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:03:55 AM PDT

    •  How True

      A friend once told me about working in Social Services in northern Alabama.  She quit because she was pressured to tell young white pregnant teenagers that they should consider adoption because the child would have a fine family and great life.  Blah, blah, blah...

      She said they never would pressure young black girls like they did teenage white girls.  The final straw for her was when the State did not intervene to help three young black children that were being neglected by their alcoholic and mentally ill mother.  The children lived in squalor and the mother could not and did not take care of them.  Sadly the same people that call themselves pro-life do nothing about helping those that have a life already.

      by Sandy on Signal on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

      •  I bet my sister could tell stories!

        she is a lawyer who does a lot of work as the advocate representing children in cps cases.  she went to law school focusing on family law.  i think our own experiences drove her to do something about it!  

        the thing i remember most about CPS (in NY) and this was in 1988 btw...  was how they didn't seem to care about us.  the social worker came to inspect our home and interview us kids because my elder sister sued my dad for custody.  

        it was freezing in the house.  you could smell the oil. (oil furnace) which we dared not start because it always caught on fire and the house filled with smoke.  we had no food in the fridge (except landis patties!)  and we had no running water. (my dad refused to fix the water pump) so my brother would go out to the well and get water which we would use to do dishes or wash ourselves.  

        what was the ladies response?  i was 16 and my lttle siter was 11.  did she yank my sister out immediately?  no.  she told me i could leave anytime i wanted!  where i would go, apparently didn't matter.  i refused to leave without my sister.  the lady never came back to reinterview, and as far as i know she never talked to my dad either.  

        the judge in the case, upon seeing the pictures of the filth in the house and the toilet filled to the brim with.... um, unflushed stuff...  wanted to have a word with CPS, so to speak.  oh was he mad!

        by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:29:25 AM PDT

        •  I vlounteered for CPS in Ft. Worth

          I attended several days of training where I learned that the law says a certain measurable amount, which I have now forgotten, of human and animal excrement and garbage per square foot is allowable and anything over that measurement is not allowable.  I was sickened.

          Neocons go completely ballistic when you mention CPS because their children are their chattel to do with as they wish.  They strip CPS of any power.  

          On the other hand, we have all heard about CPS out stepping their bounds and removing children for some completely absurd reason.  My 10 yo knocked a tooth almost out last week and we had to go to the emergency room.  I knew that we would be questioned and I would be viewed with suspicion as all parents of injured children are.

          All this bounces around in my head as I search for the balance while my internal voice screams at the absurdity of it all.

          I grieve for the loss of your childhood and for all the children!
          

          by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:12:32 AM PDT

          •  It's not all on one side

            A girl I was dating a few years back tried to volunteer for one of those inner city big brother/big sister programs. They turned here away because they thought that the black/Hispanic kids should have role models of their own race (my girlfriend was white). And this was in San Francisco!

            So it's messed up on both sides.

            by existenz on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:30:51 AM PDT

            •  If you read what I wrote

              again, you will see that I made exactly the same point.  It is messed up in both directions.

              by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

          •  Hooray for Suspicion!

            >>we have all heard about CPS out stepping their bounds and removing children for some completely absurd reason.  My 10 yo knocked a tooth almost out last week and we had to go to the emergency room.  I knew that we would be questioned and I would be viewed with suspicion as all parents of injured children are.<<

            I hope you don't mean to suggest that Child Protective Services oversteps their bounds by asking questions when a child is injured. I think we shoudl be happy when a government agency shows concern for children.

            As a student-teacher, I've been told several times to never be alone with a student. I don't get indignant about being "viewed with suspicion;" I cheer the evidence that the school system actually cares about children.

            I think if you love your children, you'll think about it and be grateful that CPS cares when your child is injured.

            by foxfire burns on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:24:42 PM PDT

            •  i think what is being said is....

              that cps takes kids out of good homes and leaves others in bad homes.  that is what i have seen.  i had a friend who had two kids and her boyfriend beat her up all the time!  they would belittle each others children with the kids right there!  i told her repeatedly to leave, but what do i know.  he loves me.  blah blah!  

              her aunt called cps.  cps did nothing, and she didn't talk to her aunt for over a year.  i couldn't prove anything... and i figured that if i could at least make sure the kids were ok...  

              her five year old had told the head start teacher that ray (her bf) had punched him.  so they sent someone over there.  they asked if there was food.  he said there was.  if they would have looked, they would have seen none.  but they didn't want to look i guess.  no one bothered to see how many times cps had been to their house.  

              after the last time... when her ex called me worried about her...  said the phone got ripped out of the wall.  i booked my butt there, cuz i was closer.  and i considered calling the cops.  when i got there i told my daughter to stay in the car.  boy was i scared.  i had my phone ready to call 911.  

              when i got up there he had been torturing her or something.  and her 2 year old was right there the whole time!  she was bleeding from her ear.  my main focus was to get her and the kid out of there.  her bf was there saying things to her and me.  trying to make me mad at her.  my only focus was getting her out of there.

              we went back to my house.  i was shaking!  i tried to convince her to call the cops.  she refused.  i told her i had thought of calling the cops.  she turned on me and told me if i ever called the cops....  she would be really mad.  

              she stayed at my house for allmost a week.  then she went back.  oh i'm gonna leave.  blah blah.  that was the last time i heard from her.

              i realized after that that i hadn't been helping anyone.  i hadn't been helping her kids.  and it was too late to do anything else.  

              my bf ran into her a couple of weeks ago.  apparently her ex had taken their son and she had just gotten him back through the courts.  her bf, according to her, wasn't hitting her anymore.  i haven't called her.  i don't think i can do it again.

              i think if i did see her again, i would make it clear that any sign of abuse... any sign of neglect and i was going to call the cops.  i would call cps.  and i am sure that would be the end of that.

              by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:46:51 PM PDT

            •  Child Safety

              Children should always wear a helmet - trips, falls and bumps cause significant brain trauma.  
              Children should never trust any adult - including a parent.
              Children should never be able to develop a mentor relationship with any adult unless it is in a group setting.
              Children should never read any literature which could cause them confusion or which might disturb them - My Pet Goat 24/7 until they're 18 and then they should magically be expected to function as autonomous adults.

              Look, sensible precautions to help kids grow up in a safe and nurturing environment are important.  But your attitude towards a restriction that would have removed a valuable adult relationship from almost every person who posts here is Bushish.  It takes a real problem and accepts as a solution a knee-jerk rule that might help avoid a horrible outcome for an occasional child while lessening the educational experience for every child.  I accept that lowering the quality of life for everyone might be acceptable to achieve a real improvement for some under these circumstances- just not without thought, study and questioning.

              The real question is what are the least restrictive, most effective procedures we can implement to protect children while not limiting positive adult contact.  If it really takes a village, we need more adult involvement and contact, not less.  How about a rule instead that a child and an adult cannot be alone in a closed room together?  Or a rule that allows a private conversation in a closed room only if the room has a video (only, no audio) monitor?  Or that requies  private interaction to be in a windowed room or office with an adult observer on the other side?  Or _____fill in the blank__.

              by 22state on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:50:08 PM PDT

            •  That's not at all what I meant!

              In MANY cases they do not remove a child when they should, but in other cases, like the woman who was breast feeding her toddler in the bathtub, they perceive harm where there is none.  In those instances, which are also numerous, they do much more harm than good.

              The system is broken is all I'm saying.  Goodness!  I was a CPS volunteer, as I mentioned in my post.

              by TXsharon on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

              •  you are right

                my sister-in-law lost custody in her divorce because she changed clothes in front of her young children and and let them sleep in bed with her if they wished (totally subjective and cultural issues) even though her husband and his new wife were known to be physically abusive (the wife put one of the children's hands in boiling water as a punishment for example).  She also has unconvential religious views (New Age).  Here in the South, that was all it took to strip her of custody.

                by southernblues on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:50:38 PM PDT

                •  Oh Jesus!

                  This is EXACTLY the kind of injustice I meant!

                  Here in the South they are more concerned with something like nudity, which is healthy in families, than in torture!  

                  I hate to hear about crap like this!  It's so twisted!  

                  by TXsharon on Sun May 01, 2005 at 06:23:44 AM PDT

    •  They don't want babies. . .

      . . . They want to punish girls and women for having sex-- through forced pregnancy.  

      The want to put the fear of pregnancy back into the sexual equation; They want girls to stop having sex or suffer the consequences.

      This isn't about babies at all.  It's about controlling sex.  If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the same people who are against abortion are also against the pill.
      

      by bella on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

      •  They are monsters

        who have so grossly distorted Christ's most essential message: love, that they are not identifiably Christian to me.

        These are cruel, cruel people who would rather force a child to carry a baby to term than examine the problems in this country which lead to 13 year-olds becoming pregnant.  1/3 of girls in this country will suffer sexual abuse in their lifetimes.  1/6 suffer that abuse at the hands of incestuous family members.  This has a direct relationship to the number of pre-teens and teens becoming hypersexual and pregnant in this country.  Where are the American Taliban's informational campaigns, "Justice Sundays," and judicial theocrats committed to addressing that? <crickets chirping>

        Monstrous, indecent people.

        by GN1927 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:46:56 AM PDT

      •  Yes, you're exactly right

        It's all about control.

        And while I know there are women who are anti-choice, anti-birth control, many of the most vocal are men. And I can't help but think that that these men's opposition is based on FEAR - fear that they might lose control over the ability to reproduce. I once had a conversation with a Limbaugh-ish man I work with about abortion and essentially his opposition to it was based on the fact that he didn't want women to be able decide when they would or would not be able to have his children. He didn't think that was FAIR!

        I hope he's still trying to get out that red wine I spit all over his khakis.

        by thebes on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:50:16 AM PDT

        •  "Saint" Augustine opposed abortion...

          ... not because he thought it was murder (he didn't).

          It was because it allowed women to have sex with consequences.  Just like men.

          by Phoenix Woman on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:46:47 AM PDT

          •  citation pease?

            im a catholic at a jesuit university, ive read a fair amount of augustine, havent come across that argument. if you have a reference handy, i would really appreciate it. i have copies of confessions and city of god handy, so all i really need is book and approx location. thanks.

            by mdon860 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:34:24 PM PDT

          •  Huh?

            Are you saying that St. Augustine opposed abortion because "...it allowed women to have sex with consequences.  Just like men." How is the birth of a baby a consequence for the male if the male cuts and runs leaving the female holding the child?

            Abortions should be safe and legal (it's a medical procedure, dammnit), and as infrequently used as possible.

            by fumie on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:30:17 PM PDT

        •  Yes, it's all about control.

          Religious zealots want to control your body and your mind.

          by slip kid no more on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

          •  Recommend renting "Magdalene Sisters"

            Harrowing movie based on true stories of young Irish girls and women sent to convents for being pregnant, good looking, or obstreperous. Could not leave unless male member of family would seek their release.  Sent by families or orphanages where they were raised.  

            Chilling.  DVD has the documentary on which film was based.  Lives basically ruined.

            Watched it during the Pope-athon. Shudder.

            by jawbone on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:30:46 PM PDT

        •  Close but no cigar.

          It's all about control.

          No, it is about men's lack of control.  A lot of things are about that.

          
          And while I know there are women who are anti-choice, anti-birth control, many of the most vocal are men. And I can't help but think that that these men's opposition is based on FEAR - fear that they might lose control over the ability to reproduce.

          Again, very close.  Not about losing ability.  They don't have it.  It is about (re)gaining that ability.

          
          I once had a conversation with a Limbaugh-ish man I work with about abortion and essentially his opposition to it was based on the fact that he didn't want women to be able decide when they would or would not be able to have his children. He didn't think that was FAIR!

          While I do not agree with his reasoning. his conclusion,he is quite right about it not being fair,
          --- but whoever said the universe was supposed to be fair?.

          You want one thing, that women have all the choice and men have no choice, he wants another, than men have choice and women don't.  If you are ever to meet, it must be in my ground - the middle.  But I wish both sides would stop the war and start trying to find a viable and FAIR compromise.

          
          I hope he's still trying to get out that red wine I spit all over his khakis.

          Yes, you demonstrated your complete power over him, your complete superiority.  You physically assaulted him with no consequence.

          <snark>Congratulations! Oh, and don't call for me for muscle when the monsters you have created come hounding at your door.</snark>

          by Truckle on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM PDT

          •  if he wants to choose when a woman has his child..

            i think such a thing must be decided by both people.  i wouldn't go and stop taking my pills without telling my bf just so i could get pregnant!  not fair!  and i wouldn't want him just deciding to get me pregnant because he wants to.  i am pregnant now, but we both made that decision together.

            this guy sounds like he should just be able to plant his seed wherever he wants to.  women should just take it and quit whining.  and that is just as wrong as if i purposely got pregnant without both of us agreeing on it.

            by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:55:06 PM PDT

            •  But wait...

              i think such a thing must be decided by both people.  i wouldn't go and stop taking my pills without telling my bf just so i could get pregnant!  not fair!  and i wouldn't want him just deciding to get me pregnant because he wants to.  i am pregnant now, but we both made that decision together.

              And if you change your mind, what say will he have?

              this guy sounds like he should just be able to plant his seed wherever he wants to.  women should just take it and quit whining.  and that is just as wrong as if i purposely got pregnant without both of us agreeing on it.

              He may be like that, but maybe not.  He might be like me but on the third level of reporting, presumption (usually of guilt) has set in.

              "People should" just isn't going to work.  Rights need to be explicitly stated and given to both parties.  People need to know what they can expect.  At the moment, for a guy, thet is "not much".
              

              by Truckle on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:59:00 PM PDT

              •  its tricky in a case where she changes her mind.

                i do agree that there must be some set rules regarding the rights of people involved.  but then again, you would have to take it on a case by case basis too.  what if he becomes abusive towards her?  what if he goes out and starts screwing around on her?  there could be extenuating circumstances.  i can't imagine someone just out of nowhere one day saying... oops.  i changed my mind.  i've said i change my mind.  but that was when the pains started. lol.  too late.

                by ejpoeta on Sun May 01, 2005 at 05:14:36 AM PDT

          •  Ah, cigars - I hear Delay has some Cuban ones

            You want one thing, that women have all the choice and men have no choice, he wants another, than men have choice and women don't.  If you are ever to meet, it must be in my ground - the middle.  But I wish both sides would stop the war and start trying to find a viable and FAIR compromise.

            No, actually I just want women to have the OPTION of choice, and in a healthy relationship the man and the woman would make this choice together. But because women have to bear the physical consequences of pregnancy or abortion, the final decision should be hers. And no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy unless
            she wants to - it is her body and she is the final decisionmaker as to what happens with it.

            Yes, you demonstrated your complete power over him, your complete superiority.  You physically assaulted him with no consequence.

            I didn't make it clear, but actually I spit the wine out in a fit of laughter as he was telling it me how unfair it was that women got to decide whether or not they could get pregnant. And, yes, there was a consequence - I paid his dry cleaning bill. (Although I secretly hope a small penumbra of the stain remains.)

            (BTW, Truckle, I read your diary on mandatory voting and I agree that it's an intriguing idea.)

            by thebes on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:28:38 PM PDT

            •  Well...

              No, actually I just want women to have the OPTION of choice, and in a healthy relationship the man and the woman would make this choice together. But because women have to bear the physical consequences of pregnancy or abortion, the final decision should be hers. And no woman should have to continue with a pregnancy unless she wants to - it is her body and she is the final decisionmaker as to what happens with it.

              (1) There are other than healthy relationships. Most.
              (2) No woman should continue with a precnancy unless he wants it.
              (3) The final decision should be made on ethics not wants.

              FWIW, I want a woman to have the option of choice.  But I want some consideration given to the man.  There needs to be mechanisms in place that satisfy the needs of both sexes.  And I don't mena just "jollies".

              If you find my point of view severe, I have been in the position of having my (wanted) child aborted (without warning) and I have also been threatened by being forced to maintain a child we agreed not to have (prior to sex).  Luckily for me the latter became a non-issue.  I have seen much of the downside of being male.  Still am (another long story).

              (BTW, Truckle, I read your diary on mandatory voting and I agree that it's an intriguing idea.)

              Thanks.  My first diary.  Didn't get a large response.  Pity, I think it will have to come one day.
              

              by Truckle on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:52:34 PM PDT

              •  Ah I see...

                Your reasons are personal. As a psychologist, I rather guessed that. My question for you is if the woman agreed not to have an abortion if you would take sole custody and raise the child on your own without her help, would you have agreed? I have had men in my practice who have answered yes and no to that.

                I also know many men, including my husband, in your  position about one person wanting a child and and setting about making that happen while the other partner did not. But in the long run, it is the woman who must deal with the pregnancy and for some women, it is not all that simple and there are complications and problems with some pregnancies. I hope when you say the second child was a nonissue, that means you accepted the child after he or she was born and you are an involved father. My husband was so angry when his ex lied to him that she was on the pill and got pregnant on purpose. She lied to him but he quickly accepted and supported the pregnancy and was a good father and fought for his marriage for as long as he could. In the end, his child became a godsend, an answer to prayer for me, as my stepson is the best thing that ever happened to me.
                We call him our son, all 3 of his parents !!!
                He feels so lucky to have 3 nurturing parents and he and I are so close, he is my son without sharing the same blood.

                But to get back to the thread, I believe that a woman's decision once pregnant is between her and her doctor and ideally between her and her husband or boyfriend. But if the man disagrees, I still think the woman has to trump the man....has to because the man cannot transplant the embryo and carry the child. Much like the gay issue and other issues, it is deeply personal and I do not believe in the invasion of privacy.

                by wishingwell on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:58:55 PM PDT

                •  Replies...

                  Your reasons are personal. As a psychologist, I rather guessed that.

                  No.  My reasons, are my reasons.  My experiences are personal.  They caused me to have my reasons.  Not quite the same thing.

                  My question for you is if the woman agreed not to have an abortion if you would take sole custody and raise the child on your own without her help, would you have agreed?

                  Without question.  But may I point out that she had alrewady agreed - and then changed her mind.  'She' has that freedom, 'he' doesn't.

                  I also know many men, including my husband, in your  position about one person wanting a child and and setting about making that happen while the other partner did not. But in the long run, it is the woman who must deal with the pregnancy and for some women, it is not all that simple and there are complications and problems with some pregnancies. I hope when you say the second child was a nonissue, that means you accepted the child after he or she was born and you are an involved father.

                  Thank god for 'complications'.  The child did not come to term.  I would not have been an involved father, I would not have accepted the situation unless I had sole custody.  That sounds hard but there are reasons.  She wound up with three other victims.

                  I am an involved father with the three kids I have now.

                  But to get back to the thread, I believe that a woman's decision once pregnant is between her and her doctor and ideally between her and her husband or boyfriend. But if the man disagrees, I still think the woman has to trump the man....has to because the man cannot transplant the embryo and carry the child. Much like the gay issue and other issues, it is deeply personal and I do not believe in the invasion of privacy.

                  If the woman disagrees (changing her mind) and does not want to have the child, that is one thing and your reasoning applies.  If she decides to have the child after agreeing not do do so, that is a seperate matter.  You should no more force a guy to be a father than you should force a woman to be a mother.  Any other view is sexist.
                  

                  by Truckle on Sun May 01, 2005 at 04:59:44 PM PDT

          •  very enlightening

            Not about losing ability.  They don't have it.  It is about gaining that ability.

            --
            hmm. yes. so anti-abortion stance to some degree is woumb envy. wow. never thought of it that way. thanks.
            --

            The ability to bring life into the world (along with ability to produce milk) is clearly the largest sex-difference.

            Anti-abortionists want to control the miracle of life.  They want to control it through legislated punishment.
            --
            also interesting:
            You want one thing, that women have all the choice and men have no choice..

            But in fact this is the biological reality. women give birth - well not entirely, because a man could still refuse to consent to sex, and prevent a woman from concieving.
            ---

            It is interesting that the whole conversation is from a power perspective.

            by biscobosco on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:58:05 PM PDT

            •  Yes,,,

              hmm. yes. so anti-abortion stance to some degree is woumb envy. wow. never thought of it that way. thanks.

              Now look at women's response in terms of penis envy and you will start to see that both classes of extremist on the issue are, at best, nuts.

              But yeah, the issue of abortion does seem (to me) to resolve down to womb envy and penis envy with possibly some vagina envy thrown in.

              But in fact this is the biological reality. women give birth - well not entirely, because a man could still refuse to consent to sex, and prevent a woman from concieving.

              There are and have been lots of realities in this world and its past.  Some have remained relaities, some have not.

              There are a number of issues that surround the biological reality that women give birth.  One of them is that they can't do it alone.

              Doesn't the male have some form of copyright?  Or are males just unimportant and disposable?

              It is interesting that the whole conversation is from a power perspective.

              It is.  But one thing that you should always remember is that if you give one group all the power you will get a severe reaction and an unstable position.

              Just saying that "a woman has the right to choose" does that thing.  Yes, a woman should have the right to choose, but if you don't toss the men a bone, give them some equality or quid pro quo then you will just be fighting this battle from one perspective or another forever.

              For my generation (and in my culture) women have had all the power.  They choose when, where, how  and what the consequences may be and the male has had no say in any of it.  All the choices have been theirs.  And you know what the consequences have been?  Bad for everyone·  I could give you an essay about it...

              by Truckle on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:50:41 PM PDT

            •  ..just a correction...

              (along with ability to produce milk)

              That ability is not unique to the female.  Some (at least) males can and do produce milk with sufficient stimulation.  Whether they can produce enough to be useful is another matter.
              

              by Truckle on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:02:41 PM PDT

        •  All males, all species, do it -

          Let me preface this by saying that
          A. I love men, and
          B. I abhor, depise, and detest the anti-choice right.

          But I think the ferocity of the men in the anti-choice movement is best explained as biologically normal animal reproductive behaviour.

          The fundamental basis for their venom and anger is  an atavistic, brain-stem based desire to control female sexuality.

          From the perspective of the "selfish gene" theory (that the overriding urge of all life, on a basic, cellular, level, is to perpetuate itself through reproduction), the behavior of the anti-abortion male makes perfect sense.  

          Just as the male swallow chases other males away from his mate, and the male lion kills the cubs of any lioness he hasn't mated with, the anti-choice men of the far right attempts to control the sexual behaviour of the women of HIS species, to maximize the chances that any children born are his.

          Because he's human, not lion, he uses Fox News, the law, and the pulpit, rather than brute force (except for clinic bombings! ) in his attempts to control women; and he uses "God's Will" as his rationalization for what is, at root, an animalistic drive.

          that said- these guys need to EVOLVE, already!

          It's interesting to me that the drive to reproduce is, apparently, much more powerful than the drive for sexual pleasure - since, if all of us women took them at their word, and had sex only for specific procreational purposes, the men of this country would have about 99% less sex than they currently do!  

          In fact, I've always thought we fiercely pro-choice women should explore the "Lysistrata"  option

          Lysistrata

           - that is, sweetly say, "oh My gosh, Mr. Falwell, Your Holiness, you are absolutely right, sex IS only for procreation.  Ok, no American woman will ever have sex again, unless it's specifically to make a baby."

          wonder how long - or if- the drive to reproduce would trump the drive for sexual pleasure in these circumstances!

          - sigh - and here Margaret Atwood thought that "The Handmaid's Tale" was fiction!

          by mldostert on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:20:07 PM PDT

      •  Controlling sex AND chipping away rights of women

        Anti-choice is anti-feminist. Judging women for sex and eliminating choice for women are both part and parcel of the male-supremacist Rethug agenda. "Family values" is code for anti-feminist and male supremacist. (Homophobia is a key corrollary to male supremacist views.)

        And so it is with most anti-democratic movements everywhere (Taliban, Saudi, various military dictatorships, etc).

        by Em on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:58:58 AM PDT

      •  Another good question

        >>This isn't about babies at all.  It's about controlling sex.  If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the same people who are against abortion are also against the pill.<<

        Good question. Here's another: why is it that many people who scream "abortion is murder" are willing to make an exception in cases of rape? If I knew my 30-year-old neighbor were conceived in rape, would I have a right to take a shotgun and blow him away? Of course not!

        Murder is not the issue, even for those who use that word in their rhetoic. The only reason to make a diction between pregnancy from sex and pregnancy from rape is if you see forced child-birth as a way to punish sex, but realize it's wrong to punish someone for being raped. for these people, punishment is the issue, not life.

        by foxfire burns on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:34:25 PM PDT

      •  because

        If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the same people who are against abortion are also against the pill.

        They're against it because they've been convinced that the pill only stops fertilized eggs from becoming implanted, not that it's main job is to stop ovulation. They believe the pill and iud's cause women to have monthly abortions. To them it's the same thing.

        But you're right, it is about controlling sex and trying to punish people who don't do what they tell them to do.

        What they don't realize is that having an abortion because you can't face dealing with people like them can be a much worse consequence than having a baby.

        by cshardie on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:06:56 PM PDT

    •  The Handmaid's Tale Scenario

      Ah, yes, producing children for wealthy, childless couples.  An interesting hypothesis.  

      by SneakySnu on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

      •  This is exactly what I had in mind.

        The scene after she gives birth is the most telling.

        The Handmaid has the baby ripped away from her and lies bleeding and alone on the table.

         Meanwhile, the woman who claimed her baby is out in a garden party  having hordes of well dressed women compliment her on "her" baby.

        Creepy beyond belief.

        I have an adopted sister who met her bio-mom after years of searching on both sides.  This lady became pregnant when her boyfirend raped her, and she was sent away to a Catholic boarding house to bear the child in secret.  For the birth she was left alone in a room, given no pain medication, and had her solitude interrupted only when the nuns came by to say they hoped she'd think again before spreading her legs for the next guy.

        by sandblaster on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:52:17 AM PDT

        •  the most strange thing

          about forced pregnacy ...

          For the birth she was left alone in a room, given no pain medication, and had her solitude interrupted only when the nuns came by to say they hoped she'd think again before spreading her legs for the next guy.

          ... is that WOMEN participate in this treatment of other women.

          by Madman in the marketplace on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:15:50 AM PDT

          •  You're supposed to fight to the death

            i.e. choose death over rape or else you "wanted it".  I remember this sicko mindset from some of the saint stories we were told in Catholic high school -- there was one about a woman in Spain that I still remember.

            And they wonder why most American Catholics ignore the church in matters of sex?
            

            by akeitz on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:48:05 AM PDT

            •  I was appalled

              When reading an article about a woman who was raped by an intruder in her home. She reported it, then discovered she was pregnant. She states she does not believe in abortion and decide to give the baby up for adoption. OK I thought this article is going to be about surviving rape. She went into therapy and her husband did to.. Then suddenly the woman decides she wants to keep the baby but her husband is upset. She is ready to sacrifice her husband to keep this baby so he relents and they keep the baby. It turned into some right wing moralizing. The article was fine ..as the woman used her CHOICE but it was the moralizing at the end of how women who are raped should keep their babies and not abort or adopt them out. That is what sickened me and my mother when we read it. !!!!!!!! It was not about CHOICE but about how rape gave her this miracle of life, child.....Oh God I said.

              by wishingwell on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:07:36 PM PDT

            •  If you're alive when it's over-

              You did the right thing. Whether you fight, or go limp, or meditate to keep your mind off of what is happening- those are decisions that can only be made in the moment. A friend of mine fought back, and got beat up; but when they caught up with the guy, he had a knife and told the cops 'I woulda slit the bitch's throat, but she'd already made too much noise'. In my case, the guy threatened to kill me and my children if I screamed, and the lizard brain said "STAY ALIVE". And obviously I'm alive. (And he won't be out until '15, and I'm glad of it.)

              I am well aware that there is a school of thought that holds to the 'fate worse than death' view, and I think we need to dump that. It is far preferable to be alive and fight back through the courts, through therapy, or by volunteering in a crisis center. If you die, your story dies with you. Alive, YOU get to write the ending.

              by Lainie on Sun May 01, 2005 at 01:54:56 AM PDT

              •  Thanks for sharing this. n/t

                by sandblaster on Sun May 01, 2005 at 06:34:41 AM PDT

              •  Can't even imagine the ordeal

                Somebody tell me how a celebate priest is supposed to know better about rape.  How dare they tell us to die or else we wanted it! You're living proof of the idiocy of their doctrine.

                by akeitz on Sun May 01, 2005 at 05:49:32 PM PDT

        •  Punishment for Sins

          There is an interesting article in Harper's this
          month that says that the Christians in England established Poor Houses to punish the poor for the
          good of their soul.

          by dickdata on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:09:32 PM PDT

      •  It's already happened

        In many Latin American countries throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s, particularly Argentina, the children of "disappeared" activists were placed in the homes of the people who had them murdered.

        Remember, Margaret Atwood made sure that every feature of The Handmaid's Tale was based on historical fact.  Every instance was based on something that had happened in the past, or was happening right now.

        by Phoenix Woman on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:50:33 AM PDT

      •  Forgive any indelicacy in this question:

        But is this 13 year old child an Afican-American, Hispanic, or a white girl?  I don't know the story, and wondered if race was a factor-- you know:

        "Ah, yes, producing children for wealthy, childless couples"      

        Might actually read:  "producing WHITE children for wealthy, rich, WHITE couples."

        Here in North Carolina, the data reveal a significant difference in the way white children and children of color experience our adoption and foster care system.    Just wondering if the case in question has any racial overtones.  It would be even more disgusting if there was even a sniff of "don't abort your WHITE baby."

        by mrsdbrown1 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:52:16 AM PDT

        •  White Babies

          This is why Canadians adopt most of our AA children.

          Top of the list for couples wanting to adopt are healthy, white girls.

          by Poor Statue on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:23:29 AM PDT

    •  They should have to adopt both of the children

      by Fernando Poo on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:16:44 AM PDT

      •  Yes, where are all those

        people wanting to provide a 'good home' for this 13 year old?  Where was all this concern for her PRIOR to her being preggers?

        by Wag the Dog on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:30:26 PM PDT

    •  They don't want the baby

      They just want to flex their political muscles and prove they mean to support "life", as long as the life doesn't pertain to 13 yr old ophaned pregnant kids.

      by Lissy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:34:41 PM PDT

    •  There are 10,000 AIDS orphans in NY State,

      at least a 100,000 nation wide. More than 500,000 children in foster care and orphanages. Those children are 3-6 times more likely to have emotional and developmental problems, educational gaps, impaired social relationships and conduct issues. What will happen to these children? A good percentage of them will be providing babies for these religious conservative right wing couples. Except for the children of children of color, those like the older children need not apply for a family of their own. It is exploitation of the poor and defenseless, and will cost us more dearly every year it continues.

      by ghengismom on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

    •  parents would want her baby

      but not the 13 year old. I do admire those foster and adoptive parents who take both the teen and her child but all too often in those cases, the teen is NOT adopted by the parents but the baby is. !!
      And at the first sign of trouble, the foster or adoptive parents of the baby kick the teen mother to the curb.

      by wishingwell on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:39:58 PM PDT

  •  Can you re-title this thread???

    I have been waiting to see this here on dKos.

    My suggestion is that you put out a title like,

    "Pregnant 13yr old may be denied an Abortion..."

    Thanks!

    by DeanFan84 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:00:08 AM PDT

    •  I'll try- but I"m having a nightmare about

      accidently screwing up and deleting my first recommended diary.

      Gulp.  Here goes.

      by sandblaster on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:02:41 AM PDT

      •  Your title is good

        there was a title about "13 year old denied abortion" yesterday.  People will think it's the same one.

        I like "in her own words"...it made me curious to read who.

        by getmeoutofdixie on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:06:00 AM PDT

        •  agree

          I wanted to hear her words.. then got the bonus of the Judge NOT knowing why she cant choose for herself.. This young lady is in-the-world more than most can claim.

          by nika7k on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

    •  It was in most recomended a couple days ago...

      Jeb Bush Blocks 13-yr. old's Access to Abortion

      This is good, the other article didn't talk about what the girl was saying.

      by lawstudent922 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:49:56 AM PDT

  •  Some MSM picked up the story...

    I heard about it on NPR and then found the story in the Miami Herald.  But it isn't getting that much press.

    Jeb Bush Blocks 13-yr. old's Access to Abortion

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:48:24 AM PDT

  •  Focus on the Health Risk

    3 and half times more likely to die......Thats key for anyone and this girl wants to do what is safiest for her.

    by Mikecan1978 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:54:14 AM PDT

  •  White, wealthy, repugs don't want

    black babies from disenfranchised backgrounds.  They want babies that look like them.  White babies.  
       Florida officials want this baby to prove their point.  That they don't want abortion, that abortion is bad, that they hold the reins when it comes to children, etc. etc.  They want the publicity to prove to the country the strength of the values, the infalliblity of their stance.  They want a child they can objectify as their current "cause" for promotion of the life culture.
        However, they don't want the "welfare state" that they are condemning the kid and her future child too.  They don't want to be responsible to either of these kids.  The 13 year old will remain in foster care shelter housing, the baby will be taken from her and sent off to another foster home.  The mother will recieve no life preparedness, no adequate college prep or job training, and will be cut loose with all her state supplied baggage upon her 18th birthday.  The baby will maybe be  adopted by a kind foster family, or maybe will be bumped from home to home, given trash bags with which to tote his/her belongings around.  Maybe the baby will get lucky, or maybe suffer the fate of so many kids within the system.  
       This country has no value for the lives of children.  And while I thought the Schiavo debacle was the most self serving, cynical exploitation of personal misfortune I have seen, I must admit, this truly takes the cake.

    by Lissy on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:10:13 AM PDT

  •  Toxins in Environment Accelerate Onset of Puberty

    The GOP is making a big stink out of teenage pregnancy but one thing that they NEVER talk about is how the increasing pervasiveness of MANY of the chemicals that are now omnipresent in the environment (hormones in meat, plasticizers in plastics, chemicals in the groundwater and rivers, etc.) act as signals to the body to tell it to enter sexual maturity sooner .. (because you will probably die sooner, it thinks?) and that has lowered the age both girls and boys enter puberty around the world by several years..

    by tarball on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:54:20 PM PDT

•  Media does not want her in the news

  Sadly, a pregnant thirteen year old makes the case of why abortion is needed in this country.  The girl is irresponsible and cannot take care of herself, let alone an infant.  As she stated, she isn't even old enough for a job.  

  No one was focused on her living on the streets two months ago, but now that she is pregnant they want to control her life.  What kind of society do we live in that is okay with a thirteen year old girl on the streets?  Definitely a barbaric one.

  by Sandy on Signal on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:44:22 AM PDT

  •  Do we live in Saudi Arabia?

    The girl is irresponsible and cannot take care of herself, let alone an infant.

    First she's 13. She is a child. Of course she's irresponsible and cannot take care of herself.  That said she sounds a fuck of a lot older than 13 in this transcript and far more responsible than the judge or the assholes running cps in Florida who are, if memory serves, Catholic Community Services free from constitutional constraints, apparently.

    Having sex with a 13 year old is illegal in any state in the union and highly illegal at that. She is, by definition, the victim of a crime. Forcing a 13 year old (and get a clue, 13 year olds aren't physiologicaly or emotionally mature enough to carry children to term) to have a baby is child abuse. What the fuck is the matter with this judge? It's clear he recognises that this ruling is not in the best interests of the child and the cps's position isn't either.
    Is Florida going to institutionalize the equivalent of the Magdalene laundries next? This is a lot bigger story than the Schiavo case. And, as an added bonus, this 13 year old has a cerebral cortex.
    

    by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:15:47 AM PDT

    •  Not true.

      Having sex with a 13 year old is illegal in any state in the union and highly illegal at that. She is, by definition, the victim of a crime.

      You're assuming that she had sex with an adult.  Many states have laws that are something like "Having sex with  someone under 16 years old is a crime, unless you are within three years age difference of the person, unless the person is under 12".  

      So (assuming that is Florida's law, which I don't know to be the case, I'm just using it as a "typical" example), she could legally be knocked up by a 12-16 year old.

      In fact, if a precocious 11 year old or younger get her pregnant, she would be the one committing the crime.

      by asdfasdf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:39:35 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for clearing that up

        In fact, if a precocious 11 year old or younger get her pregnant, she would be the one committing the crime.

        Yes, that must have been what happened. the [pattern of 13 year old runaways having sex with 11 year olds is well established. Whatever was I thinking?
        

        by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:59:46 AM PDT

        •  Sheesh

          I'm just pointing out the facts, lady.  I'm not claiming it must have been an 11 year old, or even that it was likely to be an 11 year old.

          But the pattern of children having sex with children is well-established.

          by asdfasdf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:05:26 AM PDT

          •  And what

            But the pattern of children having sex with children is well-established.

             do you think usually happens to runaway 13 year old girls, guy?

            by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:10:25 AM PDT

            •  Sheesh again

              That's so completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

              Kids get other kids pregnant.  Often.  Not most of the time, but not an insignificant percentage of the time.  And you were ignoring that significant possibility completely.  That's all I'm saying.

              by asdfasdf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:15:04 AM PDT

              •  I would say that by bringing up the loopholes

                And you were ignoring that significant possibility completely.

                 in the AOC laws your comments were irrelevant in the context of the diary.
                I'm sorry I ignored the fact that she might have been knocked up by an 11 year old and thus, along with being pregnant and used by the state of florida as a human incubator she also might be a sexual predator. My strong sense is that if you wish to start a diary on AOC laws you probably should.

                by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

                •  Chill

                  My point about being irresponsible was based on her being thirteen.  

                  Asdf's just gave an exception to your statement about sex with a thirteen year old is illegal in every state in the Union.  That is fair for asdf to point out what people assume to always be the case.

                  by Sandy on Signal on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:51:30 AM PDT

                  •  asdf

                    My point about being irresponsible was based on her being thirteen.

                    And my point was that your characterization was obvious and shallow.

                    Asdf's just gave an exception to your statement about sex with a thirteen year old is illegal in every state in the Union

                    And thereby completely ignore the reality of 13 year old runaways, the far more likely explaination and the fact that the state of Florida appears to be ignoring inconvenient facts in their pursuit of justice. The fact of the matter is that forcing a 13 year old to carry to term endangers her life and is a form of child abuse.
                    You may think it a reasonable response to point out that an 11 year old may have impregnated her, I don't.

                    by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:03:02 AM PDT

                    •  The eleven year old part

                      Was mostly a side comment.  Can you not see that, or are you intentionally harping on it even though you know it?

                      I'm not going to bother replying any more in this thread.

                      by asdfasdf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:20:14 AM PDT

                      •  Side comment or not

                        it was assinine, and that is relevant.

                        by a gilas girl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:12:26 PM PDT

                    •  He wasn't offering it as an explination

                      All he was doing was explaining how the law works, using a theoretical example. Your entire beef with this is ridiculous as to be laughable, if it weren't so damn aggravating. Got off your high horse and stop tilting at windmills already, you look not a little foolish doing it.

                      by Goldfish on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:26:59 PM PDT

                      •  apologies? of course not

                        Your entire beef with this is ridiculous as to be laughable, if it weren't so damn aggravating. Got off your high horse and stop tilting at windmills already, you look not a little foolish doing it.

                        My beef with this, besides your (and those of other guys here) abusive ratings, is that I know that children don't get 13 year old runaways pregnant. Not only did this guy you're defending get the law in Florida wrong, as a matter of fact the guy who knocked her up was 28-30 and the cops knew about it because her mother had reported statutory rape.
                        Which is pretty much the scenerio I described and I described it because it's typical.
                        

                        by colleen on Tue May 03, 2005 at 12:54:28 AM PDT

                  •  I found

                    your point about being "irresponsible" a pretty irresponsible thing for a thinking adult to say, if truth be told.

                    by a gilas girl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:11:02 PM PDT

              •  Beg to differ

                that's not all you were saying, at all.  what you were saying was filled with innuendo about irresponsible [read the unspoken poor and non-white into the innuendo at any point as well 13 year old girls and completely ignored the more statistically likely possibility that the girl was impregnated by someone older and more likely significantly older than she.  There is hundreds of years of human history supporting colleen's scenarios and only a couple of decades of affluent white male discomfort with sexually active youth of color to support yours.

                sheesh yourself.

                try reading your comment with the eyes of someone who isn't you.

                by the way, colleen is quite knowledgable in this area, her stats and her insights on the issue of women and sexual/domestic abuse have generally always been very reliable as a source of both analysis and data.

                you, on the otherhand, i've never even heard of and your attitude pretty much stinks.

                by a gilas girl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:09:04 PM PDT

                •  Thanks gilas,

                  by the way, colleen is quite knowledgable in this area, her stats and her insights on the issue of women and sexual/domestic abuse have generally always been very reliable as a source of both analysis and data.

                   it's an area where I've worked and also have heard the stories of many, many women who survived far more terrible experiences than I managed to get through.

                   I've gotten 13 year old girls off the streets before they got pregnant or got AIDS and I've talked many young women into going to school rather than work in some aspect of the sex industry. I don't do it by preaching at them or judging them or exploiting them like everyone else they've ever known, I do it by treating them like human beings worthy of respect and love. I don't want to know what sort of person would imply that I was sexually exploited as a child and then hold me up for public ridicule with that implication. But to him or her and particularly in light of the topic of this diary I would like to say a hearty "fuck you". And I have the utmost contempt for the asshole who gave him a '4' for doing so.

                  The child prostitution industry in this country is unbelievable and there's a huge market for 13-14 year olds willing to sell their bodies for a meal or a little bit of money.  Seeing as the foster care system is broken in every state in the union. And the cops almost never arrest the john's. It's as if 13 year olds get pregnant on their own.
                  Now that the house republicans and far too many democrats have decided that 15-16 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex but not mature enough to determine they need an abortion I think it's time to rethink AOC laws and actually care for children. Because forcing a 13 year old to carry a child to term isn't a 'culture of life', it's barbaric and abusive.

                  Here's the part that gets me. I maintain that discovering a 13 year old barely pubescent child homeless and on the street should evoke from a decent person a response of caring, not excitment at the opportunity for unprotected sex in which the pleasure is hardly reciprocal. And yet the girls (and boys) I've worked with tell me that any concern for them is mostly absent, not from their parents, not from the foster care system, not from law enforcement and certainly not from the men exploiting them. So, yes it's personal. What the fuck is wrong with people that pregnant 13 year olds being forced to carry to term by the 'justice' system isn't personal. It's not as if this young girl had an 'Amber' alert issued when she disappeared from the folks who were supposed to be caring for her.

                  by colleen on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:10:39 PM PDT

                  •  My experience as well

                    I have seen the same thing Colleen in my line of work as well,,, good points you make.

                    by wishingwell on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:12:17 PM PDT

                •  Well, I read it

                  And didn't read any of that. Perhaps you should consider whether such innuendo was implicit, or was in fact something you inferred. And I'm not insensitive to these things either, just ask FleetAdmiralJ about my response to him when he explicitly made the kind of statements you're accusing asdfasdf of. But there's a difference between being sensitive to subtext, and being so over-sensitive to it that you jump to inferences that simply aren't objectively supportable.

                  To steal a line, try reading the try reading your comment with the eyes of someone who isn't you.

                  I understand where you think the innuendo was, what you think it was. But I do not believe it exists outside of your own mind, and that of those who share your take on the comment. And I do not believe asdfasdf intended any such innuendo, and it is therefore rather vindictive to lambaste him for it.

                  by Goldfish on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:14:15 PM PDT

                  •  I don't read many comments

                    with eyes that are mine as I learned a long time ago that the world I live in and see is foreign to the dKos community. But the innuendo in the original comment was very plain, almost as plain as the very common and oft-denied blindspots that people operate behind whenever discussions about women's sexuality take place around here.  This has been a long-standing problem in the community.

                    The meaning is pretty clear, and its not isolated to the particular commenter; its a rather prevalent part of middle-class US culture. There's nothing vindictive in reminding people of those common pitfalls of middle-class US culture.

                    by a gilas girl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:07:20 PM PDT

          •  Me thinks Colleen

            has some personal issues she is obviously still working through.

            by Wag the Dog on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 01:47:29 PM PDT

            •  me thinks

              there are a bunch of oblivious affluent white people on this thread who have enormous blindspots.

              by a gilas girl on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:15:07 PM PDT

              •  Damn

                since when this place become a Republican watering hole?

                by Deep Dark on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:49:55 PM PDT

            •  Wha???

              Get over yourself.  Personal Issues?!?!?!  How about a 13 year old girl, regardless of her circumstances and whoever got her pregnant is being FORCED by people who ought to know better to do something to her body that may damage her for the rest of her life.  Not to mention what this might be doing to her mental health for the rest of her life.  Assholes sidetracking a diary about a 13 year old girl: unbelievable!

              by pilotweed on Sun May 01, 2005 at 03:34:30 AM PDT

          •  Actually

            the VAST majority of girls (somewhere in the 90% range) who get pregnant prior to their 14th birthday are impregnated by ADULTS over the age of 18

            by lam2b2g on Sun May 01, 2005 at 09:29:08 AM PDT

        •  Geez

          Why you feel the need to bite the head off someone who's explaining how age of consent laws work I'm not sure, but have a zero. It'll spare you the embarasement of having this fight in public.

          by Goldfish on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

          •  excepting, of course,

            that he didn't bother to look up Florida law on the subject, and got it wrong.
            

            by Deward Hastings on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:15:13 PM PDT

      •  Most pregnant teens

        are knocked up by guys significantly older than them. Often by adult men.

        by Em on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:01:21 AM PDT

        •  Yes, and?

          And that's what I was pointing out that she was assuming to be true in this particular case.

          Your point?

          by asdfasdf on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:06:08 AM PDT

          •  I was assuming it to be true

            And that's what I was pointing out that she was assuming to be true in this particular case.

             because overwhelmingly and in every study which has explored the issue, it's statistically likely that an older male (and a considerably older male in the case of very young pregnant girls such as this one) is the one responsible and, despite the fact that it's highly illegal, these cases are seldom prosecuted. Here's one link I have many more if you wish to further dispute the issue.

            Also, not that it particularly matters, you got the AOC laws as they apply in this case wrong and have failed to acknowledge this. I cheerfully admit that it's not illegal to impregnate 13 year olds in every state in the union but suggest that if the State decides that it can force girls that young to carry children to term we should not only rethink those loopholes, we should aggressively prosecute  the adult males responsible.

            My, at the time, minor point (but because of the immense resistance to reality and subsequent ratings abuse) was that if we do in fact hold these men responsible for severely damaging the loves of these young girls rather than blame children and those who advocate for them a lot of guys might think twice before using the bodies of barely pubescent and highly vulnerable girls in this manner. I can't imagine anything else which would force them to behave like decent human beings. Can you?
             

            by colleen on Sun May 01, 2005 at 09:14:10 AM PDT

      •  look it up

        In Florida the age of consent is 18 with any person, 16 with a person under 24.  So she's not "legal" in any case.  What they swould do with a "child rapist" is another (quite different) question . . .
        

        by Deward Hastings on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 10:31:26 AM PDT

      •  almost impossible

        Girls are hitting puberty early but 11 year old boys?  Bot bloody likely.  It is more likely that the guy is older.

        by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

•  If the corporate-owned media won't cover it

  then at least we can get some coverage here at dkos. Recommended.

  by nuttymango on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:01:33 AM PDT

  •  Thank you ! n/t

    by sandblaster on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:03:34 AM PDT

•  Imposing their beliefs on all

  They don't care what happens to the young girl.  They don't care that she could die while pregnant and they don't care that more than likely the baby will be a preemie with multiple birth problems.  The just want to impose their beliefs on everyone.

  I grew up in a very small town.  Mostly half Baptist and half Catholic.  A friend of mine got pregnant in high school when she was 16.  Her boyfriend was 17.  The parents got together and decided they would get married.  The parents rented them a house.  He got to stay in school and she didn't.  One day he came home and she had been sick all day.  He wanted supper and their wasn't anything fixed.  He beat the hell out of her.  Broke her nose and jaw.  She went home to her parents.  They called his.  The parents told her she had to go back to him.  She was holding out.  His parents went over to talk to him and her parents said if she didn't go back, they'd kick her out of their house.  It wasn't until she agreed to go back to him that they took her to the ER for medical treatment.

  The next time he beat her up she landed in the hospital.  Again she was forced to move back in with him.  Back during the 60's, cops didn't get into domestic fights so she had no where to turn.  The parents paid the bills and his parents gave him spending money.  She never had a cent.  She was stuck at home with no car.

  She got pregnant again, at 18.  She didn't want another child.  She wanted out of her abusive marriage.  She would have been a senior in high school.  A group of us decided to help her.  We collected money from the whole class, enough for a bus ticket for her and her daughter to go to her older sister.  The sister had escaped her fundie parents, put herself through school and had a good job.  She hadn't spoken to her parents since the day she left and they didn't know where she was.  She had kept in touch with her younger sister by sending letters to her through a friend.

  The day we drove her to the bus station, she cried.  She told us that we were saving her life.  She kept in touch with us over the years.  She got her GED, went to college, got a job and started a new life.

  I know if we hadn't helped her when we did, she would have been dead before she was 21.

  by CD in TX on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:22:12 AM PDT

  •  Your story gave me chills

    and saddens me to think we are taking so many steps back in our country today.

    I just can't imagine how anyone could force a 13 year old CHILD to have a baby, especially given that her age makes having a child life threatening.  What the hell is going on?

    by SanJoseLady on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:52:44 AM PDT

    •  Fundies

      I heard some fundie preacher say the other day that women never died from abortions before they were made legal and that back room abortions were a myth.  Maybe they didn't have them in his world, but they did in mine.  Mexico was the place to go in my time.  

      When he said that God made woman to marry, have children and serve her husband, I lost it.  Luckily I only threw a book at the TV.

      I married when I was 21, the first time.  My husband beat the shit out of me one night.  I got out of the house and ran to the neighbor.  They called the sherrif.  He called my husband's parents, who came over and took him to their house.  I fell for the line the next day that he would never do it again.  Six months later he tried again, only this time he tried to shoot me as I was leaving.  The bullet went through the door and into the back of the drivers seat of my car.  I was lucky to escape death that day.

      I went to the sherrif and showed them my car.  They wouldn't do anything about it.  I moved back home.  My Dad and brother went with me the next day to get my things.  I was basically house bound until my divorce went through.  By a man made miracle, they didn't serve my ex with divorce papers until my court date.  I had a friend who was a highway patrolman who escorted me to court to get my divorce.  I had packed my car to leave town and he escorted me to the county line and had a deputy from the next county to meet me and escort me to the apartment I rented.

      I lived in peace for 3 months until my ex found me.  Luckily I was with a large group of friends at the time.  The called the police and arrested him.  They threw him in a cell and would not let him call his Dad to bail him out.  They kept him locked up for 3 days, with no food, until he swore he'd never bother me again.  He agreed and was escorted out of town.  Luckily, the Chief of Police was a friend of my brother.  My ex-father-in-law got a lawyer to sue.  They never booked the ex and so there was no record.  His word against the cops.  Case closed.

      I lived the days when a woman had no recourse to being abused.  Most had no money to leave.  I don't want to go back to those days.  When men make laws, women always loose.

      by CD in TX on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:20:13 AM PDT

      •  you were lucky

        to have men to protect you in those days, and probably lucky that one of them was a cop. Most women aren't that lucky.

        I am well and truly scared for my friends, sisters and all of the other women in this country.

        Why won't our "leaders" stand up and FIGHT?

        by Madman in the marketplace on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:30:58 AM PDT

        •  "in those days" - DON'T FOOL YOURSELF

          That kind of thing is on the upswing.. When i watch CSPAN and I see the snide, swaggering idiots in the Hose who were going on so self-rightgeously about their bill the other day, I could see the dynamics of how those people treat 'their' children.

          To them, a child is a piece of property.. a piece of meat, essentially..

          Those are the same kinds of people who rape their children or who steal their lives with abuse..

          They do what they want.. if you are a kid who has to live with that, sooner or later you realize that you have to flee...

          Kids like that almost never get to go to college.. they end up living very difficult lives, through no fault of their own..

          by tarball on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:34:49 PM PDT

  •  why is it

    that TEENAGERS can see this, but so many adults can't?

    You and your peers did a good thing. It makes me so angry that another generation of kids will be forced to do it again.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:20:19 AM PDT

  •  DKospedia

    I know these are personal stories... But I think we might want to start a "reasons for abortion" DKospedia entry with exactly this kind of account.

    by RHunter on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:39:49 AM PDT

    •  EXCELLENT suggestion

      the movement to legalise abortion thru the decades preceeding Roe (73) worked thru telling the truth about forced continuation of unwanted pregnancy, inability to obtain legal medical abortions and so on....

      Excellent suggestion...

      I have no idea by now what the "safe" is in the mantra but to me it means legal and available... I am sick of the piousness... of people assuming things aobut women, it runs all thru the abortion threads at this site.

      I am sick of intrusion into lives.  This morning the pastor to the family in GA, where the daughter ran away, is on TV (the cables not xtian broadcasting) talking obut how great the husband to be is, he ''forgave" his fiancee and the pastor is preaching on TV, acting as interlocutor.  

      The game is to make religion the authority in our lives and the pastors chosen to "speak" for us, to intercede with elected officials and authority figures, to render us children...

      Catch Digby on Russert and his three shows on religion, ti was all preaching.  Not an examination of religion.  I am disinterested in Big Whitey, Buffalo NY Catholicism.

      NO a thousand times NO....

      by Marisacat on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 09:42:36 AM PDT

      •  buffalo ny... and the surrounding areas

        are not tim russert!  there are a lot of us around here that think what is being said is crap.  there are a lot of religious folks around here... but i think there are a lot of reasonable peole here.  at least i hope so anyway.

        by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 04:13:02 PM PDT